Environmental Justice 

Community Impact Assessment 

for the 

All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project 

from West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida 

Prepared by: 

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 

404 SW 140th Terrace 

Newberry, Florida 32669 

Prepared for: 

All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC 

2855 Le Jeune Road, 4th Floor 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

June 2014 
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

i

Table of Contents

Terminology..........................................................................................................................................v

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose ...............................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Regulatory Context..............................................................................................................1-1

2.0 Socio-economic Assessment Methodology............................................................................2-1

2.1 Assessment Area ................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Demographic Profile and Special Populations (Environmental Justice) ...................2-3

2.1.2 Community Facilities and Services............................................................................2-4

2.1.3 Mobility .......................................................................................................................2-4

2.1.4 Public Health and Safety............................................................................................2-5

2.1.5 Labor Force Characteristics and Major Employers and Industries ...........................2-5

2.1.6 Land Use....................................................................................................................2-5

2.2 Impact Assessment .............................................................................................................2-5

2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria......................................................................................................2-6

3.0 Affected Environment.................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Social Environment of the Corridor Assessment Area........................................................3-1

3.1.1 Environmental Justice Population..............................................................................3-2

3.1.2 Community Facilities and Services Inventory..........................................................3-22

3.1.3 Mobility .....................................................................................................................3-26

3.1.4 Public Health and Safety..........................................................................................3-26

3.2 Social Environment of the Station Assessment Areas......................................................3-26

3.2.1 Environmental Justice Population............................................................................3-27

3.2.2 Community Facilities and Services..........................................................................3-44

810 Datura St, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, USA ..........................................................3-45

3.2.3 Mobility .....................................................................................................................3-49

3.2.4 Public Health and Safety..........................................................................................3-53

3.3 Economic Environment of the Corridor and Station Assessment Areas ..........................3-53

3.3.1 Labor Force Characteristics and Major Employers and Industries .........................3-53

3.3.2 Average Household Income.....................................................................................3-54

3.3.3 Existing Land Use and Zoning.................................................................................3-54

4.0 Potential Impacts of Project ......................................................................................................4-1

4.1 No-Build Alternative.............................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Impacts to Social Environment of the Corridor Assessment Area......................................4-2

4.3.1 Community Facilities and Services............................................................................4-2

4.3.2 Mobility .......................................................................................................................4-2

4.3.3 Public Health and Safety............................................................................................4-3

4.3.4 Environmental Justice Population..............................................................................4-3

4.4 Impacts to Social Environment of the Station Assessment Areas......................................4-5

4.4.1 Community Facilities and Services............................................................................4-5

4.4.2 Mobility .......................................................................................................................4-5

4.4.3 Public Health and Safety............................................................................................4-6

4.4.4 Environmental Justice Population..............................................................................4-6

4.5 Impacts to Economic Environment of the Corridor and Station Assessment Areas ..........4-8

4.5.1 Labor Force Characteristics and Major Employers and Industries ...........................4-8

4.5.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning...................................................................................4-8

4.6 Effective Environmental Justice Population Participation (Public Outreach)......................4-9

4.6.1 Community Outreach and Public Involvement ........................................................4-13

4.6.2 Comments from Public Meetings.............................................................................4-14

4.6.2.1 Miami ...........................................................................................................4-14

4.6.2.2 West Palm Beach........................................................................................4-15

4.6.2.3 Fort Lauderdale ...........................................................................................4-15

5.0 Community Enhancement .........................................................................................................5-1

6.0 References...................................................................................................................................6-1
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

ii

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Figures

Figure 3-1. Miami-Dade County Corridor Minority Population Concentration

Figure 3-2. Broward County Corridor Minority Population Concentration

Figure 3-3. Palm Beach County Corridor Minority Population Concentration

Figure 3-4. Miami-Dade County Corridor Poverty Concentration

Figure 3-5. Broward County Corridor Poverty Concentration

Figure 3-6. Palm Beach County Corridor Poverty Concentration

Figure 3-7. Miami-Dade County Corridor Elderly Population Concentration

Figure 3-8. Broward County Corridor Elderly Population Concentration

Figure 3-9. Palm Beach County Corridor Elderly Population Concentration

Figure 3-10. Miami-Dade County Corridor Disabled Population (16 – 64 yrs)

Figure 3-11. Broward County Corridor Disabled Population (16 – 64 yrs)

Figure 3-12. Palm Beach County Corridor Disabled Population (16 – 64 yrs)

Figure 3-13. Miami-Dade County Corridor Limited English Proficiency

Figure 3-14. Broward County Corridor Limited English Proficiency

Figure 3-15. Palm Beach County Corridor Limited English Proficiency

Figure 3-16. Miami-Dade Corridor Assessment Area Community Facilities

Figure 3-17. Broward Corridor Assessment Area Community Facilities

Figure 3-18. Palm Beach Corridor Assessment Area Community Facilities

Figure 3-19. Miami-Dade Station Minority Population Concentration

Figure 3-20. Broward Station Minority Population Concentration

Figure 3-21. Palm Beach Station Minority Population Concentration

Figure 3-22. Miami-Dade Station Poverty Concentration

Figure 3-23. Broward Station Poverty Concentration

Figure 3-24. Palm Beach Station Poverty Concentration

Figure 3-25. Miami-Dade Station Disabled Population (16 – 64 yrs)

Figure 3-26. Broward Station Disabled Population (16 – 64 yrs)

Figure 3-27. Palm Beach Station Disabled Population (16 – 64 yrs)

Figure 3-28. Miami-Dade County Corridor Limited English Proficiency

Figure 3-29. Broward County Corridor Limited English Proficiency

Figure 3-30. Palm Beach County Corridor Limited English Proficiency

Figure 3-31. Miami-Dade Station Assessment Area Community Facilities

Figure 3-32. Broward Station Assessment Area Community Facilities

Figure 3-33. Palm Beach Station Assessment Area Community Facilities

Figure 3-34. Miami-Dade Station Mobility

Figure 3-35. Broward Station Mobility

Figure 3-36. Palm Beach Station Mobility

Figure 3-37a-t.Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area

Figure 3-38. Land Use for Miami Station Assessment Area

Figure 3-39. Land Use for Broward Station Assessment Area

Figure 3-40. Land Use for Palm Beach Station Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

iii

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Tables

Table 3.1. Total Populations at the State, County and Census Tract Level within the Corridor 

Assessment Area

Table 3-2. Land Area of the Corridor Assessment Area in Relation to State and Tri-County Total 

Land Area

Table 3-3. Summary of Minority/’Non-White’ Population at the State, County and Census Tract 

Level within the Corridor’s Assessment Area

Table 3-4. Summary of Poverty Data (2006-2010 ACS 5-year estimates) at the State, County and 

CBG Level within the Corridor Assessment Area

Table 3-5. Elderly/Senior Population Identified at the State, County and Census Tract Level within 

the Corridor Assessment Area

Table 3-6. Population with a Disability Identified at the State, County and CBG Level within the 

Corridor Assessment Area

Table 3-7. Population with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) at the State, County and CBG Level 

within the Corridor Assessment Area

Table 3-8. Summary of Community Facilities and Services at the State, County and Census Tract 

Level within the Corridor Assessment Area

Table 3-9. Summary of Transportation Used to and from Work at the State, County and Census 

Tract Level within the Corridor Assessment Area

Table 3-10. Summary of Public Safety Facilities at the County and Census Tract Level within the 

Corridor Assessment Area

Table 3-11. Total Populations at the State, County and Census Tract Level within the Station 

Assessment Areas

Table 3-12. Land Area of the Station Assessment Areas in Relation to State and Tri-County Total 

Land Area

Table 3-13. Summary of Minority/’Non-White’ Populations at the State, County and Census Tract 

Level within the Station Assessment Area

Table 3-14. Summary of Poverty Data (2006-2010 ACS 5-year estimates) at the State, County and 

CBG Level within the Station Assessment Areas

Table 3-15. Elderly/Senior Population Identified at the County and Census Tract Level within the 

Station Assessment Areas

Table 3-16. Population with a Disability Identified at the County and CBG Level within the Station 

Assessment Areas

Table 3-17. Population with LEP at the State, County and CBG Level within the Station 

Assessment Areas

Table 3-18. Summary of Community Facilities and Services at the State, County and Census Tract 

Level within the Station Assessment Areas

Table 3-19. Key Community Facilities and Services in the Station Assessment Areas

Table 3-20. Summary of Transportation Preferences at the State, County and Census Tract Level 

within the Station Assessment Areas

Table 3-21. Summary of Public Safety Facilities at the County Level within the Station Assessment 

Areas

Table 3-22. Existing Labor Force and General Employment Data for the State, County and 

Assessment Areas

Table 3-23. Average Household Income for the State, County and Assessment Areas

Table 3-24. Land Use within the Assessment Areas

Table 4-1. Comparison of Roadway Crossing Activations for the Corridor Assessment Area in 

2016

Table 4-2. Residential Institutions within the Station Assessment Areas

Table 4-3. Economic Benefits of the Proposed Action

Table 4-4. Community Outreach Data

Table 4-5. Letters and Agreements of Support
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

iv

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Public Involvement and Outreach Materials

Appendix B. Examples of Limited English Proficiency Public Involvement and Outreach Materials

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAF All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC

ACS American Community Survey

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

CBG census block group

CEQ President’s Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

FECR Florida East Coast Railway, LLC

FLUCCS Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

GIS Geographic Information System 

LEP limited English proficiency

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

ROW right-of-way

USCB United States Census Bureau

USDOT US Department of Transportation

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

v

Terminology

This Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment uses terms which are specific to this 

process and are defined herein according to the Federal Highway Administration, as well as the 

methods used in the development of data for the US Census Bureau 2000 and 2010 census 

findings.

Adverse Effects - the totality of individual human health or environmental effects, including 

interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, but are not limited to: bodily 

impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and water pollution and soil contamination; 

destruction or disruption of man-made or natural resources; destruction or diminution of aesthetic 

values; destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality; 

destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services; vibration; 

adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit 

organizations; and increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or lowincome individuals within a given community or from the broader community.

American Community Survey (ACS) - an ongoing survey that provides data (distributed for 1, 3, 

and 5-year time periods) which helps determine how federal and state funds are distributed each 

year. Data collected includes age, race, sex, family composition, income, health insurance, 

education, veteran status, disability status, housing and transportation etc. 

Assessment Areas – the Corridor Assessment Area and the Station Assessment Areas, combined.

Census Tracts - small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or statistically 

equivalent entity that are used to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of 

census data. While tracts generally contain between 1,500 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size 

of 4,000 people, their spatial size can vary widely depending on the density of settlement

Census Block Groups (CBGs) - intermediate-level statistical subdivisions of census tracts that are 

used for the presentation of census data. Within each tract, they are aggregations of census blocks 

that have the same first digit of each four-digit identifying block number. Block groups generally 

contain between 600 and 3,000 persons, with an optimum size of 1,500 persons. 

Corridor – the Miami to West Palm Beach rail corridor within the right-of-way utilized by Florida East 

Coast Railway, LLC.

Corridor Assessment Area – the Corridor, including a 1,000 foot buffer (500 feet on each side) to 

provide appropriate representation of populations without artificial dilution or inflation, consistent with 

federal guidance on environmental justice.

Disproportionately High and Adverse Effect on Minority and Low-Income Populations - an 

adverse effect which:

• Is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population; or 

• Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more 

severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the nonminority 

population and/or non low-income population.

Elderly Persons - any individual who is 65 years and older.

Limited English Proficiency Individuals (LEP) - persons who have difficulty speaking or reading 

English and are thus unable to communicate effectively in English. Individuals with LEP are usually 

those whose primary language is not English and have not developed fluency in the English 

language. 
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

vi

Low-Income Persons - any individual or family groups with a total household income lower than the 

US Department of Health and Human Services poverty guideline thresholds as defined below:

Persons in Family/Household Poverty Guideline ($)

1 11,670

2 15,730

3 19,790

4 23,850

5 27,910

6 31,970

7 36,030

8 40,090

Source: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2014

Notes: For families/households with more than 8 persons, add 

$4,060 for each additional person.

Low-Income Population - any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in 

geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons 

(such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affected by changes (e.g.

physical, policy) in their community.

Meaningfully Greater Population – A demographic within a geographic area that, when compared 

to county demographics, is greater than the county demographic percentage of that population plus 

a flat 10%. In example, if a county population is 10% minority, than a minority population of 20% and 

above within a census tract or census block group is considered meaningfully greater. This 

determinant varies by county and demographic.

Minority Persons - anyone whose ethnicity and/or race can be identified as any or a combination of 

the following categories:

• American Indian and Alaska Native— persons whose origins relate to any of the original 

people of North America and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or 

community recognition

• Asian— persons are Asian alone and have origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent;

• Black—persons who are black or have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa; and

• Hispanic — persons of any race or combination of races who identify their ethnicity, culture, or 

origin as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or 

Latino origin.

Minority Population - group of minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and who are

similarly affected by changes (e.g. physical, policy) in their community.

No-Build Alternative – as defined in the AAF EA.

Persons with Disabilities - individuals who have activity limitations and participation restrictions 

due to one or a combination of physical, cognitive, mental, sensory, emotional or developmental 

impairments. Accordingly an individual’s disability is a reflection of the interaction between their body 

features and the society in which he or she lives. These disabilities may be present from birth, or 

occur during a person's lifetime.

Project – as defined in the AAF FONSI.

Station Assessment Areas – the construction footprint of the proposed stations, located in Miami, 

Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach, including a 0.5 mile buffer from the proposed footprint to 

provide appropriate representation of populations without artificial dilution or inflation, consistent with 

federal guidance on environmental justice.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

vii

White Persons – persons who are white alone.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

1-1

1.0 Introduction

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 [42 United States Code (USC) 

4321 et seq], and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations [40 Code of Federal 

Regulation (CFR) 1500-1508], the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) evaluated the potential 

environmental and related impacts of constructing and operating an intercity passenger rail service 

as proposed by All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC (AAF), and more particularly described in the 

Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation (AAF EA) published in October 2012 for the 

intercity passenger rail service between Miami and West Palm Beach, Florida (Proposed Action). 

FRA then issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (AAF FONSI)1 for the AAF EA in January 2013. 

The FONSI identified commitments to be fulfilled prior to construction of the Project. 

In the AAF FONSI, FRA concluded that the AAF EA presented a high-level quantitative analysis of 

demographics and Environmental Justice , and that “...the Selected Alternative would not displace 

any businesses or residences and would not adversely impact the demographics of the Project 

Area....the Selected Alternative will not result in a disproportionately high or adverse effect on those 

sensitive populations and Environmental Justice communities of concern considered under 

Executive Order 12898...” FRA also determined that further analysis would be required pursuant to 

the requirements of Executive Order (EO) 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Population and Low-Income Populations, February 1994) and US Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) Environmental Justice Order 5601.2(a) (May 2, 2012). This Environmental 

Justice Community Impact Assessment (hereafter referred to as Environmental Justice Assessment) 

provides the required analysis.

1.1 Purpose 

The overall objective of this study is to prepare an Environmental Justice Assessment pursuant to 

the FONSI. This assessment includes a detailed analysis of the communities and demographics 

along the Corridor, as well as the station locations in the cities of Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West 

Palm Beach. The analysis will incorporate social characteristics including: demographic profile and 

special populations, mobility, safety, and community facilities and services; as well as economic 

characteristics including: labor force characteristics, major employers and industries, and land use 

and transportation facilities. This information will be compared to US Census Bureau (USCB) data 

for Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties to evaluate the potential for impacts on the 

community and its quality of life.

1.2 Regulatory Context

EO 12898 requires that federal agencies consider whether a proposed project would have a 

disproportionately high adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. Similarly, the DOT 

Order 5601.2, addresses minority and low-income populations. However, a community impact 

assessment, as defined by the USDOT2

, evaluates the effect transportation projects may have on 

the entire community and should include “all items of importance to people, such as mobility, safety, 

employment effects, relocation, isolation, and other community issues.”

 1 US Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration. January 2013. Finding of No Significant Impact 

for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project, West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida.

2 USDOT. 1996. Community Impact Assessment: A quick Reference for Transportation. 

http://www.ciatrans.net/CIA_Quick_Reference/Purpose.html
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

2-1

2.0 Socio-economic Assessment Methodology

2.1 Assessment Area

The Corridor Assessment Area includes 66.5 miles of the Corridor, which includes a 1,000 foot 

buffer (500 feet on each side of the rail). The Station Assessment Areas includes the three proposed 

station construction footprints and a 0.5 mile circumferential buffer extending beyond each footprint 

in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach. When used throughout the Environmental Justice 

Assessment, the term Assessment Area includes the Corridor Assessment Area and the Station 

Assessment Areas, combined. The proposed Miami Station is located between Dolphin Expressway 

and Eighth Street (Photo 1). The station platform footprint associated with this station is 

accommodated entirely on an elevated viaduct structure approximately 45 feet above grade, on 

property owned by AAF’s affiliate. The proposed Fort Lauderdale Station is bounded by NW 4th

Street to the north, FECR ROW to the east, Broward Boulevard to the south, and NW 4th Avenue to 

the west, with NW 2nd Avenue between the Corridor and the proposed station location (Photo 2). The 

proposed West Palm Beach Station is located roughly between Clematis Street and Fern Street 

(Figure 3). The two-story station building would be located to the west side of the FECR ROW on 

property fronting Evernia Street. 

Photo 1. Proposed Miami Station Location

Source: AMEC, 2014
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

2-2

Photo 2. Proposed Fort Lauderdale Station Location

Source: Kimley-Horn, 2014

Photo 3. Proposed West Palm Beach Station Location

Source: AMEC, 2014
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

2-3

2.1.1 Demographic Profile and Special Populations (Environmental Justice)

EO 12898 requires that federal agencies consider whether a proposed project would have a 

disproportionately high adverse effect on minority or low-income persons. In the memorandum that 

accompanied the EO, each federal agency is directed to include an analysis of the effects of federal 

actions on minority persons and low-income persons, when an analysis under NEPA was 

completed.

The CEQ oversees the federal government’s compliance with NEPA, including EO 12898. The CEQ, 

with input from the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and other affected agencies, 

developed Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997). 

The guidance indicates that the analysis should identify low-income and minority populations that 

may be affected by the Proposed Action; seek input from these populations during the NEPA 

process; identify a geographic scale for the collection/review of demographic information (typically 

obtained from the USCB); and identify if a disproportionately high adverse human health or 

environmental effect occurs on low-income and minority populations. In addition, the guidance 

document indicates that “minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority 

population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the 

affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general 

population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis....” A minority population also exists if 

there is more than one minority group present and the minority percentage, as calculated by 

aggregating all minority persons, meets one of the above-state thresholds”. USDOT Environmental 

Justice Order 5601.2(a) expands on environmental justice populations in CEQ guidance to include 

the elderly and disabled. In addition, to describe the communities found within the Assessment 

Areas and adequately determine impacts, community facilities and services, access and mobility, 

public health and safety, labor force characteristics, and land use are included in this assessment.

To determine if the Proposed Action will have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on 

environmental justice populations, US census demographic information was obtained for the State of 

Florida, for Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, and for census tracts within the 

Assessment Areas from the USCB and the American Community Survey (ACS). The USCB is a 

principal agency of the US Federal Statistical System, responsible for producing data about the 

American people and economy; and the ACS is an ongoing statistical survey that samples a small 

percentage of the population every year. This provides communities current information for planning

investments and services. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how 

federal and state funds are distributed each year.

Data on State and County demographics (totals and percentages) were used to compare with

conditions identified within the Assessment Area affected census tracts. The following demographic 

information was retrieved and reviewed:

• Total Population.

• Race – considered any individual who reported their ethnicity and/or race as something other 

than ‘White’ (White alone), including American Indians or Alaskan Natives, Asians and Pacific 

Islanders, Black persons, and Hispanic persons. This environmental justice analysis also 

considers minority populations to include persons who identified themselves as being either 

“some other race” or “two or more races” in the Census 2010. The ‘Non-White’ population was 

calculated by subtracting the ‘White’ population from the total population. The percent ‘NonWhite’ was calculated by dividing the ‘Non-White’ population by the total population.

• Low-income – Poverty was calculated using the USCB 2010 Census Block Groups (CBGs) for 

the State of Florida with selected fields from the 2007-2011 ACS. There is a portion of the 

population whose poverty status cannot be determined, and thus was not included herein; this 

includes individuals under age 15 that do not live with a family member (i.e. foster children) and 

people in college dormitories, military barracks, and institutional quarters, such as prisons or 

nursing homes. The percentage of the population below the poverty level was calculated based 

on the population for which poverty status has been determined, rather than the total population 
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

2-4

in a given area. The USCB uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and 

composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's 

threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty 

thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price 

Index. The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include 

capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).

Weighted Average Median Household income by county and Assessment Area was calculated 

using the following equation:

Eq. 1:

SUM (# of household that receive public assistance+# of household that don't receive Public assistance)*Median HH income

Total # of household

• Elderly Persons - Persons age 65 and older as of August 2, 2010 (Census Day).

• Persons with Disabilities - The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (PL 110-325), as 

amended, provides for equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities to access public and 

private facilities. Disabilities include those in communicative, physical, and mental domains, as 

defined by the USCB. Demographic information from the USCB regarding persons with 

disabilities was used to characterize this population. 

• Limited English Proficiency (LEP) — According to EO 13166 (Improving Access to Services for 

Persons with Limited English Proficiency (August 11, 2000)), federal and state agencies are 

directed to “take reasonable steps to ensure ‘meaningful’ access to information and services”. 

Where a significant percentage of the population is non-English speaking, information should be 

presented in a language other than English and/or at a reading level reflective of a certain level 

of literacy. USCB demographic groups that do not consider English as a first language were 

used to identify locations within the Assessment Areas where mitigation measures, including 

translated materials and interpreters, may be used for public outreach. Data includes those in the 

population 5 years and older whose main language at home is not English and who identify 

themselves as speaking English “less than very well”.

Anticipated impacts as a result of the Proposed Action that would disproportionately affect 

environmental justice populations within the Assessment Areas, based on the comparison of state, 

county, and Assessment Area demographics, were assessed (Section 4.0). 

2.1.2 Community Facilities and Services

Community facilities and services (e.g. schools, recreational facilities, supermarkets, etc.) within the 

Assessment Areas were defined through review of Department of Revenue Land Use Codes, City 

websites, and local chambers of commerce. These resources provide basic needs and services to 

communities and neighborhoods in the area. This inventory was evaluated to determine impacts 

(either increasing or decreasing access) to these public facilities.

2.1.3 Mobility

Transportation and transit data was analyzed to describe transportation trends and mobility (the 

ability to move about a community through varied means of accessible transportation) within the 

counties and Assessment Areas. Sources of information for this characterization included USCB 

data describing modes of transportation used for work; and for the Station Assessment Areas, 

mapped existing transportation infrastructure from the Bureau of Transportation Intermodal 

Passenger Connectivity Database, pedestrian and bicycle trails from the Florida Trails Network, and 

rental car company locations. Anticipated impacts to mobility as a result of the Proposed Action were

evaluated.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

2-5

2.1.4 Public Health and Safety

Health and safety features of the Proposed Action were reviewed to identify potentially 

disproportionate impacts to the environmental justice populations listed above. The impact analysis 

on public health evaluated the extent that the proposed alternatives will affect public safety, if at all. 

2.1.5 Labor Force Characteristics and Major Employers and Industries

This dataset contains the USCB 2010 Census Tracts for the State of Florida with selected fields from 

the 2010 Redistricting Summary File and Summary File. The data is divided by county and includes 

the percent of population in labor force by industry as follows:

• Educational services, and health care and social assistance;

• Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services;

• Retail Trade; and

• Arts, Entertainment and Recreation, Accommodation and Food Services.

Employment numbers by industry of state, county, and Assessment Area demographics were 

compared to evaluate potential impacts on the labor force and major employers and industries

resulting from the Proposed Action.

In addition, information collected from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, county 

websites (Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties) and selected municipal websites (Miami, 

Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach) were reviewed and incorporated, as appropriate, to describe 

the labor force and employment sectors within the Assessment Areas. Employment forecasts were

summarized and compared to the effect the Proposed Action is anticipated to have on new jobs and 

economic growth within the Assessment Areas. 

2.1.6 Land Use

The impact analysis for land use was prepared in accordance with the regulations set forth to 

implement NEPA (40 CFR § 1502.16(c) and §1508.8(b)). Existing land use (including land cover) 

within the Assessment Areas was defined and analyzed for impacts. The land use data included

mapping of the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) category 

designation (with description), acreage, and areal cover (by percent) of each mapped land use 

polygon within the Assessment Areas. 

The FLUCCS Geographical Information System (GIS) data reported for Miami Dade, Broward, and 

Palm Beach counties were based on the South Florida Water Management District Land Cover Land 

Use Dataset.

2.2 Impact Assessment

This assessment evaluated potential impacts on the socio-economic environment and 

comprehensive regional planning as well as on development within the affected environment. The 

potential for site consequences were evaluated pursuant to the general considerations described in 

the CEQ regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR § 1502.16 -

Environmental Consequences). Potential impacts include:

• Direct impacts – Impacts that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

This could include clearing land and/or converting land from one designated use to another. The 

analysis will include consideration as to whether conversion would be consistent with local land 

use plans and ordinances; and

• Secondary impacts – Impacts that are caused by the action and are later in time and farther 

removed in distance. This could include potential for use of surrounding land to change, with 

associated potential change in land value.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

2-6

2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria

The project’s potential impacts were evaluated for overall effects to determine whether any potential 

adverse impacts on the community would be significant and disproportionately high. Pursuant to 

EO12898, if disproportionate impacts are identified; mitigation measures for these impacts will be 

described. Any issues coinciding with the definitions provided in Section 2.2 for direct or secondary 

impacts are provided throughout this report in the various sections.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-1

3.0 Affected Environment

The community profile provides a summary of the baseline conditions within the community 

surrounding the Assessment Areas or “affected environment” and was developed to provide 

information on the social and economical environments of the community prior to implementation of 

the Proposed Action. Having this baseline provides the means to determine the effects the Proposed 

Action will have on the community. 

The social profile of a community provides a picture of the population distribution and their 

accessibility or ability to benefit from the facilities their community can provide. Social characteristics 

necessary to build a community profile include:

• Demographics such as total population in the area of interest, and distribution of racial/ethnic 

groups, individuals with income below the poverty line, and individuals above 65 years, with 

disabilities, and/or with low English proficiency within that population; and

• Facilities available for the community (health and emergency services, parks and recreation, 

libraries and education, etc.) and current accessibility to these facilities. 

Characterization of the social environment of each respective county compared with the Corridor 

Assessment Area is described in Section 3.1; and the Station Assessment Areas in Section 3.2. 

Characterization of the economic environment of both Assessment Areas is described in Section 

3.3.

3.1 Social Environment of the Corridor Assessment Area

The Corridor crosses through urban and rural settings, predominately within an existing rail 

transportation corridor. A total of 132 census tracts within the following counties were identified 

within the Corridor Assessment Area: Miami-Dade (39), Broward (52), and Palm Beach (41). Based 

on information obtained from the USCB, the total populations (2010) for each of the counties and the 

State of Florida, as well as the total populations within the Corridor Assessment Area (by county) are 

listed in Table 3.13

. GIS analysis indicates 6% to 13% of each county population is within the 

Corridor Assessment Area for the Proposed Action, and thus could be positively or negatively 

affected by the Proposed Action (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1. Total Populations at the State, County and Census Tract Level within the Corridor 

Assessment Area

Region Total Population

Population within the

Corridor Assessment Area

Percent of Population within the 

Corridor Assessment Area

Florida 18,801,310 534,530 2.8

Tri-County Area 5,564,635 534,530 9.6

Miami-Dade 2,496,435 156,348 6.3

Broward 1,748,066 220,308 12.6

Palm Beach 1,320,134 157,874 12.0

The Corridor Assessment Area contains a concentrated population in relation to land area. While 

9.6% of the population in the tri-county area inhabits the Corridor Assessment Area, only 0.46% of 

the total area of the county is found here. Especially in Miami-Dade, there is a large population 

contained within a small area (Table 3-2).

 3 United States Census Bureau (USCB); 2010 US Census Tracts in Florida (with Selected Fields from 2010 

Redistricting Summary File and Summary File 1); dated March 17, 2011; obtained online at http://www.census.gov, 

March 2013.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-2

Table 3-2. Land Area of the Corridor Assessment Area in Relation to State and Tri-County Total 

Land Area

Region

Total Area 

(square miles) Percent of State Area Percent of County Area

Florida 56,778.22 NA

Tri-County Area 5,421.97 9.55% NA

Miami-Dade 1,984.49 3.50% NA

Broward 1,219.28 2.15% NA

Palm Beach 2,218.20 3.91% NA

Corridor Assessment Area 24.92 0.04% 0.46%

Miami-Dade 5.36 0.01% 0.27%

Broward 9.49 0.02% 0.78%

Palm Beach 10.08 0.02% 0.45%

3.1.1 Environmental Justice Population 

Ethnicity and/or Race

Minority populations which report their ethnicity or race to be something other than white alone are 

summarized in Table 3-3. 

Table 3-3. Summary of Minority/’Non-White’ Population at the State, County and Census Block 

Group Level within the Corridor Assessment Area

Source: USCB, 2010

Data shows approximately 65% of the total population in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach 

combined (tri-county area) is minority. The Corridor Assessment Area (132 census tracts) has a 

minority population of 59%. The highest concentration of minority populations in the Corridor 

Assessment Area occurs within Miami-Dade County (74.4%). Of the 132 census tracts within the 

Corridor Assessment Area, approximately 89% (39 tracts in Miami-Dade, 45 in Broward, and 33 in 

Palm Beach counties) have minority populations greater than 50%. Census tracts with meaningfully 

greater minority populations when compared to county demographics are depicted by county in 

Figures 3-1 through 3-3.

Region

Minority/ 

‘Non-White’ 

Population

American 

Indian

Population

Asian

Population

Black 

Population

Hispanic 

Population

Total % Total % Total % Total % Total %

Florida 7,749,947 41.0 71,458 0.4 454,821 2.4 2,999,862 16.0 4,223,806 22.47

Tri-County Area 3,623,786 65.1 16,108 0.3 125,564 2.3 1,169,185 21.0 2,312,929 41.6

Miami-Dade 2,139,504 85.7 5,000 0.2 37,669 1.5 472,976 19.0 1,623,859 65.1

Broward 967,626 55.4 5,065 0.3 56,795 3.3 467,519 26.7 438,247 25.1

Palm Beach 516,656 39.1 6,043 0.5 31,100 2.4 228,690 17.3 250,823 19.0

Corridor 

Assessment Area 311,588 59.0 3,626 0.7 8,605 1.6 160,933 30.1 138,424 25.9

Miami-Dade 116,258 74.4 577 0.4 3,193 2.0 56,223 36.0 56,265 36.0

Broward 118,653 53.9 693 0.3 3,266 1.5 68,986 31.3 45,708 20.7

Palm Beach 76,677 48.6 2,356 1.5 2,146 1.4 35,724 22.6 36,451 23.1
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-3

Figure 3-1. Miami-Dade County Corridor Minority Population Concentration

Figure

3-1
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-4

Figure 3-2. Broward County Corridor Minority Population Concentration

Figure

3-2
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-5

Figure 3-3. Palm Beach County Corridor Minority Population Concentration

Figure

3-3
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-6

Low-income Persons

The percentage of the population below the poverty level is based on the population for which 

poverty status has been determined, rather than the total population in a given area. Populations 

below the poverty level are summarized in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4. Summary of Poverty Data (2006-2010 ACS 5-year estimates) at the State, County and 

Census Block Group Level within the Corridor Assessment Area

Region

Total 

Population 

Assessed

Population 

Below 

Poverty

Percent

Below 

Poverty

Weighted Average 

of Median 

Housheold Income

Median 

Household 

Income (Total 

State/County)

Florida 7,140,096 964,008 13.5 NA $47,309

Tri-County Area 2,013,933 297,300 14.8 NA NA

Miami-Dade 825,337 153,549 18.6 $60,612 $50,638

Broward 665,037 82,392 12.4 $57,772 $41,426

Palm Beach 523,559 61,359 11.7 $51,617 $40,753

Corridor 

Assessment Area 145,969 28,897 19.8 NA NA

Miami-Dade 36,150 8,190 22.7 $40,753 $50,638

Broward 57,760 11,322 19.6 $41,426 $41,426

Palm Beach 52,059 9,385 18.3 $40,753 $40,753

Notes: NA = not available

Source: USCB, 2010

Based on these data, approximately 15% of the population in the tri-county area has been below the 

poverty level within the last 12 months; this percentage of the population is equivalent to 297,300 

individuals, of which approximately 10% are concentrated in the Corridor Assessment Area. Within 

the Corridor Assessment Area, approximately 20% of the population has been below the poverty 

level within the last 12 months.

Of the 283 CBGs within the Corridor Assessment Area, approximately 34% (95 CBGs) contain either 

a meaningfully greater population below poverty than respective county demographics (29%)

(Figures 3-4 through 3-6), or have a population dominated (greater than 50%) by below-poverty

status in the last 12 months (5%).
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-7

Figure 3-4. Miami-Dade County Corridor Poverty Concentration

Figure

3-4
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-8

Figure 3-5. Broward County Corridor Poverty Concentration

Figure

3-5
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-9

Figure 3-6. Palm Beach County Corridor Poverty Concentration

Figure

3-6
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-10

Elderly Persons

The elderly/senior population (greater than 65 years old) within the counties intersected and the 

Corridor Assessment Area are described in Table 3-5. 

Table 3-5. Elderly/Senior Population Identified at the State, County and Census Tract Level within 

the Corridor Assessment Area

Region

Total Population 

Assessed

Total Elderly 

Population (>65)

Percent Elderly 

Population (>65)

Florida 18,801,310 3,259,602 17.3

Tri-County Area 5,564,635 886,592 15.9

Miami-Dade 2,496,435 352,013 14.1

Broward 1,748,066 249,424 14.3

Palm Beach 1,320,134 285,155 21.6

Corridor Assessment Area 534,530 70,611 13.2

Miami-Dade 156,348 19,228 12.3

Broward 220,308 27,250 12.4

Palm Beach 157,874 24,133 15.3

Source: USCB, 2010

Based on 2010 USCB data, approximately 16% of the population in the tri-county area is 65 years or 

older; this percentage of the population is equivalent to a total of 886,592 individuals, of which 10% 

are concentrated in the Corridor Assessment Area. Within the Corridor Assessment Area, 

approximately 13% of the population is 65 years or older. 

Census tracts with relatively high concentrations of individuals above 65 years old are depicted by 

county in Figures 3-7 through 3-9. Of the 132 census tracts within the Corridor Assessment Area, 

none reported an elderly population greater than 50%, and only nine census tracts (7%) have 

meaningfully greater elderly populations than respective county demographics.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-11

Figure 3-7. Miami-Dade County Corridor Elderly Population Concentration

Figure

3-7
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-12

Figure 3-8. Broward County Corridor Elderly Population Concentration

Figure

3-8
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-13

Figure 3-9. Palm Beach County Corridor Elderly Population Concentration

Figure

3-9
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-14

Persons with Disabilities

A summary of the population between 16 and 64 years old identified with a disability, including 

sensory, physical, mental, self-care, go-outside-home or employment disability, is presented in Table 

3-6. Such disabilities can include sensory, physical, mental, self-care, go-outside-home, and 

employment disability.

Table 3-6. Population with a Disability Identified at the State, County and CBG Level within the 

Corridor Assessment Area

Region

Population with 

Disability

Percent Population with 

Disability

Florida 2,060,447 21.2

Tri-County Area 646,307 20.9

Miami-Dade 324,062 22.6

Broward 194,881 19.3

Palm Beach 127,364 19.6

Corridor Assessment Area 68,258 16.0

Miami-Dade 19,047 16.9

Broward 28,857 16.5

Palm Beach 20,354 14.8

Source: USCB, 2010

Based on these data, approximately 21% of the population in the tri-county area has a disability; this 

percentage of the population is equivalent to a total of 646,307 individuals, of which approximately 

11% are concentrated in the Corridor Assessment Area. Within the Corridor Assessment Area, 16% 

of the population has a disability. 

CBGs with relatively high concentrations of individuals with a disability are depicted by county in 

Figures 3-10 through 3-12. Of the 283 CBGs within the Corridor Assessment Area, four CBGs (1%) 

report a disabled population greater than 50%, and 81 CBGs (29%) have a meaningfully greater 

disabled population when compared to respective county demographics.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-15

Figure 3-10. Miami-Dade County Corridor Disabled Population (16 – 64 yrs)

Figure

3-10
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-16

Figure 3-10. Broward County Corridor Disabled Population (16 – 64 yrs)

Figure

3-11
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-17

Figure 3-10. Palm Beach County Corridor Disabled Population (16 – 64 yrs)

Figure

3-12
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-18

Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

A summary of the population with limited English proficiency, as identified in 2011 ACS data, is 

presented in Table 3-7. “English Speakers” include English-only speaking populations as well as 

populations that speak English and another language. Other languages identified include Spanish, 

Indo-European, Asian and Pacific Islander, and “Other”, as defined by the USCB4

.

Table 3-7. Population with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) at the State, County and CBG Level 

within the Corridor Assessment Area

Region

Total 

Population 

Assessed

Percent of 

Population 

that Speaks 

English

LEP

Percent of 

Population 

that Speaks 

Spanish 

Percent of Population 

that Reports Speaking 

Languages Other Than 

English or Spanish

Percent of 

Population that 

Reports LEP 

(total)

Florida 18,801,310 73.2 19.8 7.0 26.8

Tri-County Area 5,200,101 75.9 19.0 5.1 24.1

Miami-Dade 2,323,557 64.2 31.9 3.9 35.8

Broward 1,637,902 84.3 9.1 6.7 15.8

Palm Beach 1,238,642 86.6 8.1 5.3 13.4

Corridor 

Assessment Area 502,599 77.4 12.3 10.3 22.6

Miami-Dade 136,585 69.8 16.1 14.0 30.2

Broward 207,600 81.2 9.3 9.4 18.8

Palm Beach 158,414 79.0 12.9 8.1 21.0

Source: USCB, 2010

Based on the language information retrieved from the 2011 ACS, the majority of the population 

within the Corridor Assessment Area speaks English (69.8% to 81.2%) (Table 3-7). The remainder 

of the population, between 18.8% and 30.2%, is identified as LEP. 

Census blocks groups with relatively high concentrations of individuals with LEP are depicted by 

County in Figures 3-13 through 3-15. Of the 283 CBGs within the Corridor Assessment Area, three

CBGs (1%) reported a LEP population greater than 50%, and 23 CBGs (8%) have a meaningfully 

greater LEP population when compared to respective county demographics.

 4 United States Census Bureau (USCB); 2010 Census Block Groups in Florida (with Selected Fields from the 2007-

2011 American Community Survey); dated December 6, 2012; obtained online at http://www.census.gov, April, 2014.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-19

Figure 3-13. Miami-Dade County Corridor Limited English Proficiency

Figure

3-13
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-20

Figure 3-14. Broward County Corridor Limited English Proficiency

Figure

3-14
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-21

Figure 3-15. Palm Beach County Corridor Limited English Proficiency

Figure

3-15
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-22

3.1.2 Community Facilities and Services Inventory

Community facilities and services within or along the Corridor Assessment Area were identified and 

divided into nine main categories as follows (Table 3-8):

• Clubs – clubs, lodges, and union halls;

• Grocery - supermarkets;

• Education - private and public schools and colleges; 

• Medical and Healthcare - convalescent and rest homes, private and public hospitals, and 

sanitariums;

• Burial grounds - cemeteries and mortuaries;

• Religious centers- churches, mosques and synagogues;

• Recreation - forests, parks, and recreational areas;

• Residential Institutions - homes for the aged and orphanages; and

• Transportation - airports, bus terminals, marinas, and piers.

Table 3-8. Summary of Community Facilities and Services at the County and Census Tract Level 

within the Corridor Assessment Area

Region

ClubsGrocery EducationMedical & HealthcareBurial GroundsReligious

Centers

RecreationResidential InstitutionsTransportation

Tri-County Area 369 390 2,750 494 1,041 3,505 2,453 331 405

Miami-Dade 126 87 1,244 143 271 1,352 93 177 58

Broward 128 181 716 176 662 1,035 1,787 115 120

Palm Beach 115 122 790 175 108 1,118 573 39 227

Corridor Assessment Area 56 40 126 33 46 241 19 17 19

Miami-Dade 4 4 30 4 3 37 2 8 1

Broward 32 19 50 17 6 112 9 6 12

Palm Beach 20 17 40 9 37 89 8 3 6

Based on data summarized in Table 3-8, educational and religious centers are the most common 

types of facilities in the tri-county area and the Corridor Assessment Area. In the Corridor 

Assessment Area, Miami–Dade County contained a total of 30 educational and 37 religious centers; 

Broward County contained 50 and 112 centers, respectively; and Palm Beach County contained 40 

and 89 centers, respectively.

Community facilities and services found within affected census tracts in each county are presented 

in Figures 3-16 through 3-18.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-23

Figure 3-16. Miami-Dade Corridor Assessment Area Community Facilities

Figure

3-16
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-24

Figure 3-17. Broward Corridor Assessment Area Community Facilities

Figure

3-17
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-25

Figure 3-18. Palm Beach Corridor Assessment Area Community Facilities

Figure

3-18
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-26

3.1.3 Mobility

The preferred modes of transportation within the tri-county area and the Corridor Assessment Area 

are summarized in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9. Summary of Transportation Used to and from Work at the County and Census Tract 

Level within the Corridor Assessment Area

Region

Total 

Population 

Assessed

Preferred Mode of Transportation to Work (percent)

Car

Motorcycles

and Bicycles

Public 

transport Walk Other

Tri-County Area 2,503,554 88.4 0.8 3.6 1.8 1.1

Miami-Dade 1,112,485 86.8 0.7 5.2 2.1 1.2

Broward 825,581 89.7 0.8 2.9 1.3 1.0

Palm Beach 565,488 89.6 0.9 1.5 1.7 1.1

Corridor Assessment 

Area 175,056 84.5 1.3 6.1 3.1 1.1

Miami-Dade 41,921 80.3 0.6 11.2 3.0 0.6

Broward 69,156 84.5 1.9 6.1 3.5 1.2

Palm Beach 63,979 87.8 1.2 2.7 2.7 1.2

A majority (80% or more) of the population in the Corridor Assessment Area uses a car as the 

preferred mode of transportation. Public transportation is the second most used form of 

transportation, with as much of 11% (in Miami-Dade County) of the population within the Corridor 

Assessment Area relying on public transportation for access to work. 

3.1.4 Public Health and Safety

Public safety facilities within the Corridor Assessment Area are summarized in Table 3-10. 

Table 3-10. Summary of Public Safety Facilities within the Corridor Assessment Area

Region

Facility Type

Fire Rescue Stations, Fire Departments, 

and Emergency Medical Response Law Enforcement

Corridor Assessment Area 15 9

Miami-Dade 4 2

Broward 4 4

Palm Beach 7 3

Source: USCB, 2010

3.2 Social Environment of the Station Assessment Areas

Proposed station locations are in urban areas in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach, 

Florida. A total of 24 census tracts within the following counties were identified within the Station 

Assessment Areas: Miami-Dade (12), Broward (5), and Palm Beach (7). Based on information 

obtained from the USCB, the total populations (2010) for each of the counties and the State of 

Florida, as well as the total populations within the Station Assessment Areas (by county) are listed in 

Table 3-115

. GIS analysis indicates just over 1 percent of each county population is within the 

Station Assessment Areas for the Proposed Action, and thus could be positively or negatively 

affected by the Proposed Action (Table 3-11).

 5 United States Census Bureau (USCB); 2010 US Census Tracts in Florida (with Selected Fields from 2010 

Redistricting Summary File and Summary File 1); dated March 17, 2011; obtained online at http://www.census.gov, 

March 2013.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-27

Table 3-11. Total Populations at the State, County and Census Tract Level within the Station 

Assessment Areas

Region Total Population

Population within the 

Assessment Area

Percent of Population within the 

Assessment Area

Florida 18,801,310 76,426 0.4

Tri-County Area 5,564,635 76,426 1.4

Miami 2,496,435 29,925 1.2

Fort Lauderdale 1,748,066 24,789 1.4

West Palm Beach 1,320,134 21,712 1.6

The Station Assessment Areas contains a concentrated population in relation to land area. While 

1.4% of the population in the tri-county area inhabits the Station Assessment Areas, only a millionth 

of a percent of the total area of the county is found there. Especially in West Palm Beach, there is a 

large population contained within a small area (Table 3.12).

Table 3-12. Area of the Station Assessment Areas in Relation to State and Tri-County Total Area

Region Total Area

(square miles) Percent of State Area Percent of County Area

Florida 56778.22 NA NA

Tri-County Area 5421.97 9.55% NA

Miami-Dade 1984.49 3.50% NA

Broward 1219.28 2.15% NA

Palm Beach 2218.20 3.91% NA

Station Assessment Areas 0.03 0.00006% 0.00062%

Miami 0.01 0.00002% 0.00053%

Fort Lauderdale 0.01 0.00003% 0.00120%

West Palm Beach 0.01 0.00001% 0.00037%

Source: AMEC, 2014

3.2.1 Environmental Justice Population 

Ethnicity and/or Race

Minority populations which report their ethnicity or race to be something other than white alone are 

summarized in Table 3-13. 

Table 3.13. Summary of Minority/’Non-White’ Populations at the State, County and Census Tract 

Level within the Station Assessment Area

Data shows approximately 65% of the total population in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach 

combined (tri-county area) is minority. The Station Assessment Areas (24 tracts) have a minority 

population of approximately 71%. The highest concentration of minority populations in the Station 

Assessment Areas occurs within Miami-Dade County (88%). Of the 24 census tracts within the 

Region

Minority/ 

‘Non-White’ 

Population

American 

Indian

Population

Asian

Population

Black 

Population

Hispanic 

Population

Total % Total % Total % Total % Total %

Florida 7,749,947 41.0 71,458 0.4 454,821 2.4 2,999,862 16.0 4,223,806 22.47

Tri-County Area 3,623,786 65.1 16,108 0.3 125,564 2.3 1,169,185 21.0 2,312,929 41.6

Miami-Dade 2,139,504 85.7 5,000 0.2 37,669 1.5 472,976 19.0 1,623,859 65.1

Broward 967,626 55.4 5,065 0.3 56,795 3.3 467,519 26.7 438,247 25.1

Palm Beach 516,656 39.1 6,043 0.5 31,100 2.4 228,690 17.3 250,823 19.0

Station Assessment 

Areas 53,913 70.5 616 0.8 984 1.3 31,218 40.8 21,426 28.0

Miami 26,399 88.2 481 0.5 417 1.4 9,639 32.2 16,193 54.1

Fort Lauderdale 15,595 62.9 54 0.2 253 1.0 13,263 53.5 2,025 8.2

West Palm Beach 11,919 54.9 81 0.4 314 1.5 8,316 38.3 3,208 14.8
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-28

Station Assessment Areas, approximately 75% (11 tracts in Miami-Dade, 3 in Broward, and 4 in 

Palm Beach counties) have minority populations greater than 50 percent. Census tracts with 

meaningfully greater minority populations when compared to county demographics are depicted by 

county in Figures 3-19 through 3-21.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-29

Figure 3-19. Miami-Dade Station Minority Population Concentration

Figure

3-19
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-30

Figure 3-20. Broward Station Minority Population Concentration

Figure

3-20
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-31

Figure 3-21. Palm Beach Station Minority Population Concentration

Figure

3-21
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-32

Low-income Persons

The percentage of the population below the poverty level is based on the population for which 

poverty status has been determined, rather than the total population in a given area. Populations 

below the poverty level within the Station Assessment Areas are summarized in Table 3-14.

Table 3-14. Summary of Poverty Data (2006-2010 ACS 5-year estimates) at the State, County and 

CBG Level within the Station Assessment Areas

Region

Total 

Population 

Assessed

Population 

Below 

Poverty

Percent

Below 

Poverty

Weighted Average 

of Median 

Household Income

Median Household 

Income (Total 

State/County)

Florida 7,140,096 964,008 13.5 NA $47,827

Tri-County Area 2,013,933 297,300 14.8 NA NA

Miami-Dade 825,337 153,549 18.6 $60,612 $50,638

Broward 665,037 82,392 12.4 $57,772 $41,426

Palm Beach 523,559 61,359 11.7 $51,617 $40,753

Station Assessment 

Areas 21,130 5,241 24.8 NA NA

Miami 8,461 2,951 34.9 $29,579 $29,579

Fort Lauderdale 6,260 1,237 19.8 $55,344 $55,344

West Palm Beach 6,409 1,053 16.4 $44,789 $44,789

Notes: NA = not available

Source: USCB, 2010

Based on these data, approximately 15% of the population in the tri-county area has been below the 

poverty level within the last 12 months; this percentage of the population is equivalent to 297,300 

individuals, of which 2% are concentrated in the Station Assessment Areas. Within the Station 

Assessment Areas, approximately 25% of the population has been below the poverty level within the 

last 12 months. This is 10% higher than the total percent of the population below poverty within the 

three counties (15%), and 11% higher than the percent below poverty for the entire state (14%). The 

percent of population below poverty in the last 12 months in the Station Assessment Areas in Miami 

is 16% higher than the percent of population below poverty for Miami-Dade, and 1% and 4% higher 

for and Broward and Palm Beach counties, respectively. 

Of the 48 CBGs within the Station Assessment Areas, approximately 48% (23 CBGs) contain either 

a meaningfully greater population below poverty than respective county demographics (35%)

(Figures 3-22 through 3-24), or have a population dominated (greater than 50%) by below-poverty 

status in the last 12 months (13%).
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-33

Figure 3-22. Miami-Dade Station Poverty Concentration

Figure

3-22
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-34

Figure 3-23. Broward Station Poverty Concentration

Figure

3-23
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-35

Figure 3-24. Palm Beach Station Poverty Concentration

Figure

3-24
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-36

Elderly Persons

The elderly/senior population (greater than 65 years old) within the counties intersected and the 

Station Assessment Areas are described in Table 3-15. 

Table 3-15. Elderly/Senior Population Identified at the County and Census Tract Level within the 

Station Assessment Areas

Region

Total Population 

Assessed

Total Elderly 

Population (>65)

Percent Elderly 

Population (>65)

Florida 18,801,310 3,259,602 17.3

Tri-County Area 5,564,635 886,592 15.9

Miami-Dade 2,496,435 352,013 14.1

Broward 1,748,066 249,424 14.3

Palm Beach 1,320,134 285,155 21.6

Station Assessment Areas 76,426 8,918 11.7

Miami 29,925 3,175 10.6

Fort Lauderdale 24,789 1,956 7.9

West Palm Beach 21,712 3,787 17.4

Source: USCB, 2010

Based on 2010 USCB data, approximately 16% of the population in the tri-county area is 65 years or 

older; this percentage of the population is equivalent to a total of 886,592 individuals, of which 1% 

are concentrated in the Station Assessment Areas. Within the Station Assessment Areas, 

approximately 12% of the population is 65 years or older. This is 5% lower than the state elderly

population (17%), and 4% lower than the tri-county total elderly population (16%). 

Of the 24 census tracts within the Station Assessment Areas, none have meaningfully greater 

elderly populations than respective county demographics.

Persons with Disabilities

A summary of the population between 16 and 64 years old identified with any disability, including 

sensory, physical, mental, self-care, go-outside-home or employment disability, is presented in Table 

3-16. 

Table 3-16. Population with a Disability Identified at the County and CBG Level within the Station 

Assessment Areas

Region Population with Disability Percent Population with Disability 

Florida 2,060,447 21.2

Tri-County Area 646,307 20.9

Miami-Dade 324,062 22.6

Broward 194,881 19.3

Palm Beach 127,364 19.6

Station Assessment Areas 8,072 49.5

Miami 3,140 35.9

Fort Lauderdale 2,099 32.6

West Palm Beach 2,833 29.1

Source: USCB, 2000

Based on these data, approximately 21% of the population in the tri-county area has a disability; this 

percentage of the population is equivalent to a total of 646,307 individuals, of which 1% is 

concentrated in the Station Assessment Areas. Within the Station Assessment Areas, approximately 

50% of the population has a disability, with the highest concentration of disabled persons in Miami 

(36%). 

CBGs with relatively high concentrations of individuals with a disability are depicted by county in 

Figures 3-25 through 3-27. Of the 48 CBGs within the Station Assessment Areas, three CBGs (6%) 

report a disabled population greater than 50%, and 21 CBGs (44%) have a meaningfully greater 

disabled population when compared to respective county demographics.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-37

Figure 3-25. Miami-Dade Station Disabled Population (16 – 64 yrs)

Figure

3-25
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-38

Figure 3-26. Broward Station Disabled Population (16 – 64 yrs)

Figure

3-26
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-39

Figure 3-27. Palm Beach Station Disabled Population (16 – 64 yrs)

Figure

3-27
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-40

Persons with LEP

A summary of the population with limited English proficiency, as identified in 2011 ACS data, is 

presented in Table 3-17. “English Speakers” include English-only speaking populations as well as 

populations that speak English and another language. Other languages identified include Spanish, 

Indo-European, Asian and Pacific Islander, and “Other”, as defined by the USCB6

.

Table 3-17. Population with LEP at the State, County and CBG Level within the Station 

Assessment Areas

Region

Total 

Population 

Assessed

Percent of 

Population 

that Speaks 

English

LEP

Percent of 

Population 

that Speaks 

Spanish 

Percent of Population 

that Reports Speaking 

Languages Other Than 

English or Spanish

Percent of 

Population that 

Reports LEP 

(total)

Florida 18,801,310 73.2 19.8 7.0 26.8

Tri-County Area 5,200,101 75.9 19.0 5.1 24.1

Miami-Dade 2,323,557 64.2 31.9 3.9 35.8

Broward 1,637,902 84.3 9.1 6.7 15.8

Palm Beach 1,238,642 86.6 8.1 5.3 13.4

Station Assessment 

Areas 64,936 82.1 14.3 3.6 17.9

Miami 23,527 65.7 31.6 2.7 34.3

Fort Lauderdale 21,744 90.3 4.1 5.6 9.7

West Palm Beach 19,665 92.6 4.9 2.5 7.4

Source: USCB, 2010

Based on the information retrieved from the 2011 ACS, the majority of the population within the 

Station Assessment Areas speak English (66% to 93%) (Table 3-7). The remainder of the 

population, between approximately 7% and 34%, is identified as LEP. As compared to the county 

LEP populations, the Station Assessment Areas in all three counties has a lower LEP population 

than county demographics. Overall, the Station Assessment Areas has a lower tri-county LEP 

population (18%) than the tri-county average (24%) and the State average (27%).

CBGs with relatively high concentrations of individuals with LEP are depicted by county in Figures 3-

28 through 3-30. Of the 48 CBGs within the Station Assessment Areas, 23 CBGs (48%) reported a 

LEP population greater than 50%, and two CBGs (4%) have a meaningfully greater LEP population 

when compared to respective county demographics.

 6 United States Census Bureau (USCB); 2010 Census Block Groups in Florida (with Selected Fields from the 2007-

2011 American Community Survey); dated December 6, 2012; obtained online at http://www.census.gov, April, 2014.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-41

Figure 3-28. Miami-Dade Station Limited English Proficiency

Figure

3-28
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-42

Figure 3-29. Broward Station Limited English Proficiency

Figure

3-29
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-43

Figure 3-30. Palm Beach Station Limited English Proficiency

Figure

3-30
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-44

3.2.2 Community Facilities and Services

Community facilities and services within or along the Station Assessment Areas were identified and 

divided into nine main categories, using the same descriptions as provided in Section 3.1.2 (Table 

3-18).

Table 3-18. Summary of Community Facilities and Services at the County and Census Tract Level 

within the Station Assessment Areas

Region

ClubsGrocery EducationMedical & HealthcareBurial GroundsReligious

Centers

RecreationResidential InstitutionsTransportation

Tri-County Area 369 390 2,750 494 1,041 3,505 2,453 331 405

Miami-Dade 126 87 1,244 143 271 1,352 93 177 58

Broward 128 181 716 176 662 1,035 1,787 115 120

Palm Beach 115 122 790 175 108 1,118 573 39 227

Station Assessment Areas 5 4 28 6 3 60 9 6 10

Miami 2 0 5 0 0 17 2 1 0

Fort Lauderdale 3 4 7 1 1 22 7 3 9

West Palm Beach 0 0 16 5 2 21 0 2 1

Source: USCB, 2010

Based on data summarized in Table 3-18, educational and religious centers are the most common 

types of facilities in the tri-county area and the Station Assessment Areas. In the Station Assessment 

Areas, Miami contained a total of 5 educational and 17 religious centers; Fort Lauderdale contained 

7 and 22 centers, respectively; and West Palm Beach contained 16 and 21 centers, respectively.

Community facilities and services found within affected census tracts in each county are presented 

in Figures 3-31 through 3-33.

There are several community facilities and services found within the Station Assessment Areas that 

are important to the local population (Table 3-19).
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-45

Table 3-19. Key Facilities and Services within or near the Station Assessment Areas

Region Facility Name Facility Address

Location Relative 

to Station

Miami

Department of Children & Families 401 NW 2nd Ave, Miami, FL 

33128

Within Station 

Assessment Area

Miami Police Department 400 NW 2nd Ave, Miami, FL 

33128

Within Station 

Assessment Area

US Post Office 500 Northwest 2nd Avenue Miami, 

FL 33101

Within Station 

Assessment Area

City of Miami Fire Station 1 144 NE 5th St, Miami, FL 33132 East of Station 

Assessment Area

Fort Lauderdale

Broward County Cultural Division 100 South Andrews Avenue Fort 

Lauderdale, FL 33301

Within Station 

Assessment Area

Broward County Library 100 S Andrews Ave, Fort 

Lauderdale, FL 33301

Within Station 

Assessment Area

Fort Lauderdale City Hall 100 N Andrews Ave, Fort 

Lauderdale, FL 33301

Within Station 

Assessment Area

Fort Lauderdale Fire Rescue 528 NW 2nd St, Fort Lauderdale, 

FL 33311

Within Station 

Assessment Area

Department of Children & Families 201 W Broward Blvd #511, Fort 

Lauderdale, FL 33311

Within Station 

Assessment Area

US Post Office 400 NW 7th Ave, Fort Lauderdale, 

FL 33311

West of Station 

Assessment Area

Cross Road Food Bank, Inc. 621 NW 6th Ave, Fort Lauderdale, 

FL 33311

West of Station 

Assessment Area

West Palm 

Beach

Department of Children & Families 111 S Sapodilla Ave #3, West Palm 

Beach, FL 33401

West of Station 

Assessment Area

US Post Office 640 N Clematis St, West Palm 

Beach, FL 33401

West of Station 

Assessment Area

Palm Beach County Community 

Services Department

810 Datura St, West Palm Beach, 

FL 33401, USA

West of Station 

Assessment Area

American Red Cross 825 Fern St, West Palm Beach, FL 

33401

West of Station 

Assessment Area

Palm Beach County Police 

Department

1755 Tiffany Dr E, West Palm 

Beach, FL 33407

West of Station 

Assessment Area

Source: AMEC, 2014
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-46

Figure 3-31. Miami-Dade Station Assessment Area Community Facilities

Figure

3-31
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-47

Figure 3-32. Broward Station Assessment Area Community Facilities

Figure

3-32
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-48

Figure 3-33. Palm Beach Station Assessment Area Community Facilities

Figure

3-33
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-49

3.2.3 Mobility

The preferred modes of transportation within the tri-county area and the Station Assessment Areas 

are summarized in Table 3-20.

Table 3-20. Summary of Transportation Preferences at the State, County and Census Tract Level 

within the Station Assessment Areas

Region

Total 

Population 

Assessed

Preferred Mode of Transportation to Work (percent)

Car

Motorcycles

and Bicycles

Public 

transport Walk Other

Tri-County Area 2,503,554 88.4 0.8 3.6 1.8 1.1

Miami-Dade 1,112,485 86.8 0.7 5.2 2.1 1.2

Broward 825,581 89.7 0.8 2.9 1.3 1.0

Palm Beach 565,488 89.6 0.9 1.5 1.7 1.1

Station Assessment 

Areas 22,082 73.1 1.4 9.8 7.7 1.4

Miami 7,720 66.0 1.0 18.5 8.8 0.7

Fort Lauderdale 7,374 78.8 1.6 7.5 5.3 1.4

West Palm Beach 6,988 75.0 1.6 2.7 8.8 2.3

A majority (66% or more) of the population in the Station Assessment Areas uses a car as the 

preferred mode of transportation. Public transportation is the second most used form of 

transportation, with as much as approximately 19% of the population within the Station Assessment 

Area of Miami relying on public transportation. 

The networks of available modes of transportation (bus terminals, metro rail station locations, car 

rental establishments, water taxis, and multi-use public trails) in the Station Assessment Areas are 

included in Figures 3-34 through 3-36.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-50

Figure 3-34. Miami-Dade Station Mobility

Figure

3-34
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-51

Figure 3-35. Broward Station Mobility

Figure

3-35
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-52

Figure 3-36. Palm Beach Station Mobility

Figure

3-36
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-53

3.2.4 Public Health and Safety

Public safety facilities within the Station Assessment Areas are summarized in Table 3-21. 

Table 3-21. Summary of Public Safety Facilities within the Station Assessment Areas

Region

Facility Type

Fire Rescue Stations, Fire Departments, and 

Emergency Medical Response Law Enforcement

Assessment Area 3 10

Miami 1 3

Fort Lauderdale 1 2

West Palm Beach 1 5

Source: USCB, 2010

3.3 Economic Environment of the Corridor and Station Assessment Areas

The economic environment of the assessment areas is defined by economic characteristics: 

unemployment rates, labor force characterization and dominant business sector types; as well as 

average household income and existing land use.

3.3.1 Labor Force Characteristics and Major Employers and Industries

The existing labor force and dominant business sectors identified in the Corridor Assessment Area 

and Station Assessment Areas and associated counties are described in Table 3-22. The data 

summarized in Table 3-22 was obtained from the 2007-2011 ACS, “Selected Economic 

Characteristics” on the USCB website7

: According to the ACS, the following four business sector 

types employ the greatest percentage of the labor force in the three counties associated with the 

Corridor Assessment Area and Station Assessment Areas: educational services, health care, and 

social assistance; retail trade; professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste 

management services; and arts, entertainment and recreation, accommodation and food services.

Employment characteristics of the Assessment Areas are generally similar to those of the tri-county 

area, with the greatest number of people working in educational services, health care, and social 

assistance (14.5% in the Corridor Assessment Area, and 16.1% in the Stations Assessment Area). 

In both Assessment Areas, there are a greater number of people working in arts, entertainment and 

recreation, accommodation and food services; when compared to tri-county statistics (approximately 

4% more in both the Corridor Assessment Area and Stations Assessment Area). 

 7 United States Census Bureau (USCB); American Community Survey; obtained online at 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www, June 2013.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-54

Table 3-22. Existing Labor Force and General Employment Data for the State, County and 

Assessment Areas

Area

Total 

Population 

in Labor 

Force

Industry Type (Percent of Workforce)

Percent 

Unemployed

Educational 

Services, 

Health Care 

& Social 

Assistance

Retail

Trade

Professional, 

Scientific, 

Management, 

Administrative 

& Waste 

Management 

Services

Arts, 

Entertainment & 

Recreation, 

Accommodation 

& Food Services

Florida 8,258,511 18.3 11.7 10.7 10.0 10.3

Tri-County Area 2,849,897 17.9 11.6 11.7 9.3 10.2

Miami-Dade 1,257,458 17.8 11.2 11.0 9.1 9.9

Broward 944,554 18.0 11.8 11.9 9.1 10.5

Palm Beach 647,885 17.9 12.0 12.5 10.0 10.5

Corridor Assessment Area 291,437 14.5 11.5 12.7 12.6 12.5

Miami-Dade 75,387 15.7 10.8 19.6 14.2 11.6

Broward 126,178 13.8 11.9 7.6 12.0 12.9

Palm Beach 89,872 14.4 11.7 13.9 12.2 12.7

Station Assessment Areas 35,008 16.1 10.7 12.0 12.6 11.9

Miami 11,521 14.4 10.2 10.3 14.8 10.5

Fort Lauderdale 12,314 14.9 9.1 15.3 12.6 13.0

West Palm Beach 11,173 19.2 13.0 10.2 10.5 12.2

Source: USCB ACS, 2011

3.3.2 Average Household Income

The average household income in the Corridor Assessment Area and Station Assessment Areas 

and associated counties are described in Table 3-23.

Table 3-23. Average Household Income for the State, County and Assessment Areas

Area

Average Household Income 

(dollars)

Florida 47,309

Tri-County Area 60,334

Miami-Dade 61,617

Broward 57,772

Palm Beach 61, 612

Corridor Assessment Area 44,272

Miami-Dade 40,753

Broward 41,426

Palm Beach 50,638

Station Assessment Areas 43,237

Miami 29,579

Fort Lauderdale 55,344

West Palm Beach 44,789

Source: USCB, 2010

Within the Corridor Assessment Area, Palm Beach County has the highest average household 

income ($50,638); within the Station Assessment Areas, Fort Lauderdale has the highest average 

household income ($55,344). 

3.3.3 Existing Land Use and Zoning

Land use in the Corridor Assessment Area is primarily a mix of commercial and services and multifamily residential (Figures 3-37a through 3-37t). Land use in the Station Assessment Areas is 

primarily commercial and services, with some multi-family residential and single-family residential 

use (Figures 3-38 through 3-40). 
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-55

The Assessment Areas are dominated by commercial and services land use; followed by singlefamily residential land use in the Corridor Assessment Area, and multi-family residential land use in 

the Station Assessment Areas (Table 3-24).

Construction of the Proposed Action will comply with the allowed uses of the existing zoning 

categories of the properties on which the Proposed Action will be located.

Table 3-24. Land Use within the Assessment Areas

Region

Percent Land Use 

Commercial Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential

Corridor Assessment Area 33.5 17.7 38.7

Miami-Dade 48.5 16.6 34.9

Broward 45.2 23.8 31.1

Palm Beach 40.0 13.2 46.8

Station Assessment Areas 52.7 18.0 3.3

Miami-Dade 43.7 23.2 0.0

Broward 48.0 30.4 0.5

Palm Beach 66.4 0.00 9.5

Source: AMEC, 2014
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-56

Figure

3-37a

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-57

Figure

3-37b

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-58

Figure

3-37c

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-59

Figure

3-37d

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-60

Figure

3-37e

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-61

Figure

3-37f

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-62

Figure

3-37g

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-63

Figure

3-37h

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-64

Figure

3-37i

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-65

Figure

3-37j

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-66

Figure

3-37k

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-67

Figure

3-37l

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-68

Figure

3-37m

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-69

Figure

3-37n

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-70

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area

Figure

3-37o
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-71

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area

Figure

3-37p
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-72

Figure

3-37q

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-73

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area

Figure

3-37r
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-74

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area

Figure

3-37s
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-75

Figure

3-37t

Land Use for Corridor Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-76

Figure

3-38
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-77

Figure

3-39

Land Use for Broward Station Assessment Area
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

3-78

Land Use for Palm Beach Station Assessment Area

Figure

3-40
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-1

4.0 Potential Impacts of Project

Potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action are evaluated to ensure that impacts, both 

beneficial and adverse, are equally distributed in a nondiscriminatory manner throughout the 

affected community. As defined in the Appendix of the USDOT Order 5610.2(a), adverse effects 

include, but are not limited to:

• Destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality; 

• Destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services; 

• Adverse employment effects; and

• Increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion, or separation of minority or low-income 

individuals within a given community or from the broader community.

Impacts are categorized as direct or indirect8

. Direct impacts include impacts that immediately or 

primarily affect the physical location of the Proposed Action, such as destruction of structural or 

environmental features, relocation of residents and businesses, or loss of access. Indirect impacts 

extend beyond the physical location of the Proposed Action, such as induced economic growth or 

increased mobility within the community, and can be short term or long term. The magnitude of 

impacts is based on the nature of the impacts, its relative severity, and the potential for mitigation.8

Impacts can often be counterbalancing, such as an increase in mobility corresponding with an 

associated increase in traffic. When adverse impacts are identified, such effects can be moderated 

through avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of the impact; and enhancement of the 

community (see Section 5.0), pursuant to CEQ guidance.

4.1 No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur. Freight operations will 

continue with a planned annual growth of 5%-7% between today and 2016, and 3% per year after 

2016. There are no associated positive impacts to the social or economic environments of the 

Assessment Areas under this alternative. However, given the projected increase in intercity traffic 

between Miami and West Palm Beach, the No-Build Alternative has the potential to contribute to 

future adverse transportation impacts on I-95 and Florida’s Turnpike by not aiding in the reduction of 

the projected increase in total automobile volume on these roads. Without the added capacity 

provided by the proposed passenger service, these roads would be forced to absorb the majority of 

this increase.

4.2 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action includes the development and operation of rail infrastructure within the existing 

ROW of the Corridor, which has supported freight and/or passenger service on a continuous basis 

for more than 100 years, and communities have generally built up around and along the Corridor. 

Therefore, potential negative effects to the communities along Corridor Assessment Area would

predominately consist of the increased frequency of train traffic at higher speeds at which the 

passenger trains may travel, and noise related impacts. Delays at the road crossings are expected 

to be more frequent with the increased frequency of train traffic; however the delays are also 

expected to be minimal, as the trains should clear a typical crossing in less than a minute.

The AAF FONSI found that the Proposed Action would provide a net regional air quality benefit as 

compared to the current conditions, reducing regional criteria pollutants, mobile source air toxics, 

and greenhouse gas emissions. It was also found that the Proposed Action is not expected to result 

in significant vibration impacts associated with construction and operation. Noise mitigation through 

the uses of stationary wayside horns, as committed to by AAF, was found in the AAF FONSI to 

“[e]liminate all severe impacts in Broward County and Miami-Dade County and more than 99% of all 

 8 Florida Department of Transportation. 2000. Community Impact Assessment: A Handbook for Transportation 

Professionals
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-2

severe impacts in Palm Beach County; [e]liminate at least 99% of the moderate impacts in Broward 

County and Miami-Dade County and more than 98% of the moderate impacts in Palm Beach 

County; and [i]mprove noise conditions in the region because it would include mitigation that is not 

expected to be instituted with the No Build Alternative....”

The stations included within the Proposed Action are located adjacent to the existing Corridor ROW, 

and are located in developed urban areas. Potential negative effects to the communities within the 

Station Assessment Areas predominately consist of increased vehicular traffic, which has been 

analyzed in a traffic study recently conducted by AAF.9

Although there are greater environmental justice populations within the Assessment Areas, there are 

no negative impacts associated with the Proposed Action that disproportionately impact these 

populations.

4.3 Impacts to Social Environment of the Corridor Assessment Area

4.3.1 Community Facilities and Services

The Proposed Action is not expected to negatively impact accessibility to community facilities and 

services within the Corridor Assessment Area. The Corridor has existed in the affected environment 

for more than 100 years, and consequently, communities have generally built up around and along 

the Corridor. Furthermore, no community facilities or services will be displaced or relocated under 

the Proposed Action. 

4.3.2 Mobility

An increase in the availability of public transport as a result of the Proposed Action is expected to 

create an indirect, positive effect within the Corridor Assessment Area. In areas such as Miami-Dade 

County, where public transport is used by an estimated 11% of the population, the Proposed Action 

provides an important additional benefit to the mobility of the community. Moreover, the Proposed 

Action provides an alternative mode of travel for long-distance trips across Florida for commuters.

The Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on local vehicular traffic along the Corridor 

Assessment Area. The increase in number of crossing events due to the addition of 16 round trip 

passenger trips per day would cause additional delay events, but delays from passenger trains

would be much shorter than delays from existing freight traffic (Table 4-1). Also, the projected annual 

increase in freight capacity would result in minor increases in local roadway crossing delays, but 

total impacts relative to existing conditions would be minimal.

Table 4-1 shows expected roadway crossing delay times in the counties that contain the Corridor 

Assessment Area. Closure times are provided for both passenger and freight operations from the 

2016 project opening year. The delay times show that due to the higher operating speeds of 

passenger and freight trains in the Corridor Assessment Area, resulting closure times per crossing 

will be less. 

 9 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. April 2014. All Aboard Florida – Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach 

Traffic Impact Analyses.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-3

Table 4-1. Comparison of Roadway Crossing Activations for the Corridor Assessment Area in 2016

County

Number of 

Crossings

Freight Passenger

Train Speed 

(miles per 

hour)

Maximum 

Closure

(minutes/hour)

Train Speed 

(miles per 

hour)

Maximum 

Closure 

(minutes/hour)

Miami-Dade 38 41 3.0 49 1.9

Broward 67 38 2.5 61 1.8

Palm Beach 83 39 2.4 76 1.7

Source: AMEC, 2013

A traffic study was conducted as part of the AAF EA10 on densely populated sections of the same 

Corridor Assessment Area analyzed in this impact assessment. The EA showed that implementation 

of passenger rail operations would result in no impact to local roadway traffic along the Corridor 

Assessment Area. As discussed in previous sections, results of this modeling showed that impacts 

would not result due to only minor increases in crossing delays compared to delays from existing 

freight traffic. The roadways included in that analysis also had some of the highest traffic volumes of 

any roadways along the Corridor Assessment Area (annual average daily traffic range from 6,900 to 

59,900), and were located in the most densely populated counties. Furthermore, the Proposed 

Action is expected to decrease the number of vehicles on the regional roadway networks due to 

travelers utilizing the Proposed Action for transportation, as opposed to vehicular transport.

4.3.3 Public Health and Safety

There are no negative impacts to emergency response routes along the Corridor Assessment Area 

expected as a result of the Proposed Action. Upgrades to road-crossings during the construction 

phase may need to be coordinated with and/or communicated to local planning departments and 

emergency responders.

Design elements of the Proposed Action include the enhancement of signal and train control 

systems; the reduction of the potential for accidents at highway-rail at-grade crossings; and the 

limitation of access to rail infrastructure by trespassers and other unauthorized persons. These 

design elements are expected to lead to the operation of a safe railroad for passengers, employees, 

pedestrians and motorists. In addition, consolidated control of both freight and passenger train 

movement, plus the added rail infrastructure, will allow freight operations to continue to grow, safely 

and reliably, without adverse impact from the restoration of intercity passenger rail services within 

the Corridor Assessment Area, all while allowing passenger trains to operate with a high degree of 

reliability.

4.3.4 Environmental Justice Population

Ethnicity and/or Race

There is a widespread distribution of areas identified as having high proportions of minority residents 

throughout the Corridor Assessment Area (Figures 3-1 through 3-3). 

Data shows that approximately 65% of the total population in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach 

counties combined (tri-county area) is minority. The Corridor Assessment Area (132 census tracts) is 

lower than the county percentage, with a minority population of 59%. Although a county-level 

analysis of the Corridor Assessment Area indicates that there is a higher minority population in the 

Palm Beach County segment of the Corridor (48.6%) when compared to respective county 

demographics (39.1%), it is lower than the average in the tri-county area (65.1%). The Proposed 

Action would not result in the physical division of communities. As there are no relocations required 

associated with Proposed Action, there is no need to comply with Uniform Relocation Act.

 10All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All 

Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. Available at: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-4

Therefore, even though pockets of high minority populations occur along the Corridor Assessment 

Area, the environmental justice thresholds defined by CEQ guidance have not been met for high 

minority populations. Therefore, an adverse impact on minority populations would not occur as a 

result of the Proposed Action.

Low-income Persons

There is a widespread distribution of areas identified as having high proportions of low-income 

residents throughout the Corridor Assessment Area (Figures 3-4 through 3-6). 

Approximately 10% of the population below poverty in the tri-county area is found within the Corridor 

Assessment Area. Within the Corridor Assessment Area, 20% of the population has been below the 

poverty level within the last 12 months. This is 5% higher than the total percent of the population 

below poverty within the three counties (15%), and 6% higher than the percent below poverty for the 

entire state (14%). The percent of population below poverty in the last 12 months in the Corridor 

Assessment Area in Miami-Dade County is 4% higher than the percent of population below poverty 

for Miami-Dade, and 8% and 6% higher for and Broward and Palm Beach counties, respectively.

While the demographics for low-income persons are higher in the Corridor Assessment Area as 

compared to respective county demographics, impacts associated with the Proposed Action are 

dispersed throughout the length of the corridor between all populations in an equitable manner 

(Figures 3-4 through 3-6). Noise and vibration impacts associated with the Proposed Action are 

mitigated through wayside horns, and are further discussed in the AAF EA. Therefore, an adverse 

impact on low-income persons would not occur as a result of the Proposed Action.

Elderly Persons

There is an intermittent distribution of areas identified as having high proportions of elderly persons 

throughout the Corridor Assessment Area (Figures 3-7 through 3-9). 

Within the Corridor Assessment Area, 13% of the population is 65 years or older. This is 4% lower 

than the state elderly population (17%), and 3% lower than the tri-county total elderly population 

(16%). Therefore, thresholds as defined by CEQ guidance have not been met for the elderly 

population within the Corridor Assessment Area. Additionally, AAF trains will comply with all 

Americans with Disability Act requirements. As such, the Proposed Action has the potential to 

benefit the elderly community by providing a transportation option that will enhance mobility and 

livability in their communities. AAF trains will be single-level, fully-accessible coaches. Therefore, an 

adverse impact on elderly persons would not occur as a result of the Proposed Action.

Persons with Disabilities

There is an intermittent distribution of areas identified as having high proportions of persons with 

disabilities throughout the Corridor Assessment Area (Figures 3-10 through 3-12). 

Within the Corridor Assessment Area, 16% of the population has a disability. This is approximately 

5% lower than both the state and tri-county disabled population (21%). Therefore, thresholds as 

defined by CEQ guidance have not been met for the population with a disability within the Corridor 

Assessment Area. Additionally, AAF trains will comply with all Americans with Disability Act 

requirements. As such, the Proposed Action has the potential to benefit the disabled community by 

providing a transportation option that will enhance mobility and livability in their communities. AAF 

trains will be single-level, fully-accessible coaches. Therefore, an adverse impact on persons with 

disabilities would not occur as a result of the Proposed Action.

Persons with Limited English Proficiency

There is a widespread distribution of areas identified as having high proportions of limited Englishspeaking residents throughout the Corridor Assessment Area (Figures 3-13 through 3-15). 
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-5

Within the Corridor Assessment Area, approximately 23% of the population is limited in English 

proficiency. This is 1% lower than the total percent of the population with LEP within the tri-county 

area (24%), and 4% lower than the percent of the population with LEP for the entire state (27%). 

A county-level analysis of the Corridor Assessment Area indicates that there is a higher LEP 

population in the Broward and Palm Beach County segments of the Corridor (19% and 21%, 

respectively) when compared to county demographics (16% and 13%, respectively). To provide 

“‘meaningful’ access to information and services” as required in EO 13166, AAF has included 

Spanish-language and Haitian-Creole-language public involvement materials throughout the 

planning process, including public notices in local newspapers and fact sheets, as well as translators 

at community meetings and forums (Appendix A). Therefore, an adverse impact on persons with 

LEP would not occur as a result of the Proposed Action.

4.4 Impacts to Social Environment of the Station Assessment Areas

4.4.1 Community Facilities and Services

The Proposed Action is not expected to impact accessibility of community facilities and services 

within the Station Assessment Areas. No community facilities or services will be displaced or 

relocated under the Proposed Action. 

4.4.2 Mobility

Overall, the Proposed Action is expected to enhance mobility within the Station Assessment Areas. 

The Proposed Action provides an additional form of public transportation that integrates with existing 

forms of transportation found within the Station Assessment Areas. The following discussion 

summarizes various components of each station that are expected to improve mobility:

• In the Miami Station Assessment Area, the central terminal station architecture will be integrated 

with the structure of an elevated railroad viaduct passing over the city streets approximately 45 

feet above grade. The viaduct will parallel the existing elevated Metrorail infrastructure and span 

over the MetroMover alignment, crossing the site at NE 5th Street. Convenient multi-modal 

connectivity between AAF, Metrorail and MetroMover will be available, in addition to ample 

curbside drop-off, taxi queue, connecting bus and van service, local and regional bus transit, 

bicycle parking, and significant pedestrian connectivity to the terminal facility.

• In the Fort Lauderdale Station Assessment Area, one at-grade road crossing will be closed at 

NW 2nd Street. The at-grade crossing closures would not impact local circulation adversely due 

to existence of alternate routes in close proximity to the proposed crossing closures; resulting in 

minimal changes to the existing traffic patterns and no impact to access existing properties. A 

two-block extension of NW 2nd Avenue between NW 2nd Street and NW 4th Street is proposed to 

the west of the Corridor. This will increase the available alternative routes compared to those 

existing today, and provide access to 4th Street and Broward Boulevard. No dead-end conditions 

would result from this closure, and access to existing properties will not be negatively affected. 

Therefore the Fort Lauderdale Station maintains existing access to all parcels and provides for 

better vehicular circulation via the extension of NW 2nd Avenue.

• In the West Palm Beach Station Assessment Area, two at-grade road crossings will be closed at 

Datura Street and Evernia Street. The at-grade crossing closures would not impact local 

circulation adversely due to existence of alternate routes in close proximity (adjacent Clematis

Street and Fern Street, respectively) to the proposed crossing closures; resulting in minimal 

changes to the existing traffic patterns and no impact to access to existing properties. Therefore, 

these at-grade closings are considered a minor indirect impact. 

An analysis of possible impacts to traffic as a result of the Proposed Action has been conducted, and 

resulted in a finding of acceptable traffic flow and volume in accordance with respective county 
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-6

guidelines and criteria.11 Construction activities associated with the stations are anticipated to create 

minimal, temporary impacts. Best management practices and traffic plans will be developed and 

employed throughout the Station Assessment Areas to minimize these short-term impacts. 

4.4.3 Public Health and Safety

The Proposed Action will be ADA compliant and include safety features such as cameras in stations 

and parking lots and regular police patrols, thus enhancing the safety within the Station Assessment 

Areas. The public space surrounding the station building will be organized to allow for efficient and 

safe pedestrian circulation and wayfinding. The presence of security at the stations and associated 

parking areas could help reduce crime rates in the Station Assessment Areas.

During peak vehicular traffic times, an expected increase in emergency response times may result. 

However, traffic studies indicate a safe and acceptable level of traffic even during these high volume 

periods.11

4.4.4 Environmental Justice Population

Ethnicity and/or Race

There is a widespread distribution of areas identified as having high proportions of minority residents 

throughout the Station Assessment Areas (Figures 3-19 through 3-21). 

Data shows that approximately 65% of the total population in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach 

counties combined (tri-county area) is minority, and that the minority population in the Station 

Assessment Areas (24 tracts) is higher than the County percentage, with a minority population of 

70%. Meaningfully greater minority populations can be found in Fort Lauderdale (8% greater) and 

West Palm Beach (15% greater). While the demographics for minority populations are higher in the 

Station Assessment Areas as compared to respective county demographics, impacts (both positive 

and negative) associated with the Proposed Action are dispersed throughout the Station 

Assessment Areas between all population in an equitable manner. Therefore, an adverse impact on 

minority populations would not occur as a result of the Proposed Action.

Low-income Persons

There are widely distributed areas identified as having high proportions of low-income residents 

throughout the Station Assessment Areas (Figures 3-22 through 3-24). 

Approximately 15% of the population below poverty in the tri-county area is found within the Station 

Assessment Areas. Within this area, approximately 25% of the population has been below the 

poverty level within the last 12 months. This is 10% higher than the total percent of the population 

below poverty within the three counties (15%), and 11% higher than the percent below poverty for 

the entire state (14%). The percent of population below poverty in the last 12 months in the Station 

Assessment Areas in Miami is 16% higher than the percent of population below poverty for MiamiDade County, and 8% and 4% higher for Broward and Palm Beach counties, respectively. While the 

demographics for low-income persons are higher in the Station Assessment Areas as compared to 

respective county demographics, impacts (both positive and negative) associated with the Proposed 

Action are dispersed throughout these areas between all populations in an equitable manner. 

Therefore, an adverse impact on low-incomes persons would not occur as a result of the Proposed 

Action.

Elderly Persons

There are no areas identified as having high proportions of elderly persons within the Station 

Assessment Areas. 

 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. April 2014. All Aboard Florida – Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach 

Traffic Impact Analyses. 
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-7

Within these areas, 12% of the population is 65 years or older. This is 5% lower than the state 

elderly population (17%), and 4% lower than the tri-county total elderly population (16%). Therefore, 

thresholds as defined by CEQ guidance have not been met for the elderly population within the 

Corridor Assessment Area. Additionally, AAF stations will comply with all Americans with Disability 

Act requirements. Therefore, an adverse impact on elderly persons would not occur as a result of 

the Proposed Action.

Persons with Disabilities

There is a widespread distribution of areas identified as having high proportions of persons with 

disabilities throughout the Station Assessment Areas (Figures 3-25 through 3-27). 

Approximately 1% of the disabled population within the tri-county area are located in these areas. 

Within the area, 50% of the population has a disability. This is approximately 29% higher than both 

the state and tri-county disabled population (21%). This meaningfully greater disabled population 

throughout all three counties is likely attributable to several residential institutions within the Station 

Assessment Areas (Figures 3-31 through 3-33). These institutions are listed in Table 4-2, below.

Table 4-2. Residential Institutions within the Station Assessment Areas

Region Facility Name Facility Address

Miami

Palm Garden of Aventura 21251 E Dixie Highway

Watercrest Care Center 16650 W Dixie Highway

Biscayne 88 Terrace, LLC 660 NE 88 Terrace

Salvation Army – Adult Rehabilitation Center 2236 NW Miami Court

Miami Rescue Mission 2020 NW 1 Avenue

Chapman Partnership 1550 N Miami Avenue

Kidco Childcare 221 NE 36 Street

Fort Lauderdale New River Villas 408 SW 7 Avenue

Children’s Home Society 401 NE 4 Street

West Palm Beach

City Walk Assisted Living 534 Datura Street

Lourdes-Noreen McKeen 315 S Flagler Drive

St. James Residence 400 S Olive Avenue

St. Andrew’s Residence 208 Fern Street

Source: AMEC, 2014

The development of each station will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as 

other applicable federal, state and local provisions related to access for persons with disabilities. All 

station facilities and platforms will have elevator access, and there are no stairs or other obstacles to 

impede boarding trains. Additional design elements intended to improve safety and accessibility to 

all users, especially the handicapped, would include pedestrian scale lighting, hand rails, horizontal 

landing areas for rest along barrier free ramps, and benches. With such a large population of 

individuals with disabilities located in the vicinities of the proposed stations, the Proposed Action has 

the ability to increase the livability and mobility of this population in their communities. Therefore, an 

adverse impact on persons with disabilities would not occur as a result of the Proposed Action.

Persons with LEP

Within the Station Assessment Areas, approximately 18% of the population is limited in English 

proficiency. This is 6% lower than the total percent of the population with limited English proficiency

within the tri-county area (24%), and 9% lower than the percent of the population with limited English 

proficiency for the entire state (27%). To provide “‘meaningful’ access to information and services” 

as required in EO 13166, AAF has included both Spanish and Haitian Creole language public 

involvement materials throughout the planning process, including public notices in local newspapers

and fact sheets, as well as translators at community meetings and forums. Therefore, an adverse 

impact on persons with LEP would not occur as a result of the Proposed Action.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-8

4.5 Impacts to Economic Environment of the Corridor and Station Assessment Areas

4.5.1 Labor Force Characteristics and Major Employers and Industries

The Proposed Action is expected to have numerous positive impacts associated with economic 

benefits to the local populations, as well as local, county and state governments. Substantial job 

creation, including jobs related to both construction and operation, is anticipated. Additional 

economic benefits include stimulation of local economies, a reduction of tax burdens and increases 

in tax receipts.

According to findings from an economic impact study conducted by The Washington Economics 

Group, Inc., a leading economic consulting practice based in Florida and led by Dr. Tony Villamil, the 

economic stimulus impacts of the Project will be realized across the State of Florida12. Further, the 

tri-county area will share in the overall results due to the specific activities of construction spending, 

operating and maintenance activities that will occur there as a result of the geography of the 

proposed Project, including the impacts during the projected two-year construction period for the 

Proposed Action shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Economic Benefits of the Proposed Action

County

Jobs 

Generated*

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Gross Domestic

Product

($ Millions)

Federal, State & Local Tax 

Revenues

($ Millions)

Miami-Dade 457 51.4 75.4 14.6

Broward 488 54.8 80.4 15.6

Palm Beach 952 107 156.8 30.2

Source: The Washington Economics Group, Inc. (WEG)

* To avoid double counting net new jobs, the average of all years is used to estimate the number of jobs created per 

year as shown in the Cumulative Impact column.

Particularly at the West Palm Beach Station, the location allows the community to focus 

redevelopment energy toward the northern part of Downtown, as desired by the City, while uniquely 

sparking economic activity in the neighborhoods situated both east and west of Quadrille Boulevard. 

4.5.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning

The Assessment Areas contain a mix of commercial and services, multi-family residential, and 

single-family residential land uses. Due to the age of the existing corridor, established 

neighborhoods and communities have evolved in conjunction with the Corridor. The Corridor has 

supported freight and/or passenger service on a continuous basis for more than 100 years. There 

are no expected negative impacts to land use and zoning associated with the Proposed Action.

Construction associated with the Proposed Action will comply with the allowed uses of the existing 

zoning categories of the property on which the Proposed Action will be located. Since there is no 

clearing of land or conversion of land from one land use FLUCCS category to another land use

category, no adverse direct impacts to land use or zoning are presumed. 

The proposed stations within the Station Assessment Areas would be located within the central 

business districts of Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, and their proposed uses and 

intensities are consistent with local plans:

• Miami’s Downtown Development Authority’s 2025 Downtown Miami Master Plan13 identifies as 

one of its overarching goals: “Uncomplicated and non-problematic access to Downtown Miami is 

critical to its economic and social strength. Access strategies should focus on the continuing 

 12 The Washington Economics Group, Inc. Economic Impacts of the All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail 

Project. May 20, 2014. Available at: http://www.allaboardflorida.com/files/economic-impact-full-report.pdf 13Miami Downtown Development Authority. October 2009. 2025 Downtown Miami Master Plan.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-9

development of multiple and intermodal transportation options that ease the ability to get to and 

from downtown, as well as the ability to move quickly and easily throughout the downtown.” This 

goal goes on to specifically “promote regional level/commuter transit such as SFEC Corridor, TriRail and High-Speed Rail....develop a viable Downtown Intermodal Center at Government 

Center or Overtown Metrorail Stations.” The Proposed Action supports connectivity from 

downtown and supports the provision of intermodal facilities connecting to existing and future 

transit systems, and thereby supports the goals of the Miami Downtown Development Authority.

• The City of Fort Lauderdale’s consolidated Downtown Master Plan14 calls for the improvement of 

connections from Downtown to regional and statewide mass transit infrastructure: “Passenger 

rail service should be encouraged and planned on the existing FECR line that runs through 

Downtown....it is potentially the single most important catalyst for the revitalization of city centers 

up and down Florida’s east coast, including Downtown Fort Lauderdale. The return of passenger 

rail service to Downtown would decrease commuter automobile traffic, activate streets with 

pedestrians, provide Downtown residents with convenient transit connections along the Florida 

coast, and catalyze rapid economic development.” The construction and operation of the 

Proposed Action therefore works to meet the goals of the City of Fort Lauderdale and is 

consistent with City planning.

• The Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan15 does not include language regarding the 

installation of a high speed railway within the county. However, the Comprehensive Plan does 

describe the existing commuter rail, Tri-Rail (south Florida's commuter rail system), and further 

encourages the use of rails for commuter transportation. “Palm Beach County (through Tri-Rail 

and its coordination with the Metropolitan Planning Organization) desires to continue to design 

and implement a program of incentives to encourage the use of rails as a mode of transportation 

(Policy 1.5-j).” The City of West Palm Beach clearly supports the incorporation of transit within 

the community in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and associated Transportation Element: “The 

City shall promote the designation of land uses and densities which are supportive of mass 

transit in areas around public transportation corridors; the City shall continue to coordinate with 

the appropriate agencies on the adoption and implementation of the South Florida East Coast 

Corridor Study, which seeks to provide public transit options within the existing FECR railroad 

corridor; and the City shall encourage and support multimodal connections between, city areas, 

the Airport, the Downtown, and the Port.” The measurement of the success will be through 

increased usage of the rail modes of transportation. Therefore, the construction and operation of 

the Proposed Action is consistent with Palm Beach County and the City of West Palm Beach’s 

planning goals and objectives.

The proposed stations would promote transit-oriented development on vacant and underutilized 

properties. Therefore, they could catalyze planned growth in the downtown areas and revitalize 

surrounding neighborhoods. The stations would also be beneficial by attracting new businesses and 

development, and may help increase nearby property values.

4.6 Effective Environmental Justice Population Participation (Public Outreach)

Developing effective public participation strategies is central to the principles of environmental 

justice, and an important component to meet the goals identified in EO 12898. Ways to increase 

participation of environmental justice communities during the planning process include finding ways 

to overcome linguistic, cultural, institutional, geographic, and other barriers to allow meaningful 

participation, and active outreach incorporation to affected groups.

 14 City of Fort Lauderdale. November 2003, updated with May 2007 Master Plan Update. Fort Lauderdale: Building a 

Livable Downtown. Consolidated Downtown Master Plan for the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

15 Palm Beach County Planning Division (PBCPD), Palm Beach County, Florida, 2012. Comprehensive Plan: 

Transportation Element. Website accessed March 2013: http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/pzb/planning/comprehensive 

plan/tableofcontent.htm.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-10

Since AAF made the first public announcement of its proposed passenger rail project in Florida, a 

robust and comprehensive public engagement strategy has been employed. A series of meetings,

briefings, speeches and telephone calls with stakeholders, community leaders, neighborhood 

leaders and elected officials have been ongoing and will continue. To reach out to environmental 

justice communities, AAF placed public notices in Spanish-language and Haitian Creole-language 

newspapers; provided translated fact sheets, and held meetings within or accessible from the 

environmental justice communities.

AAF has participated in more than 300 meetings with residents, business and community leaders,

and public agencies throughout the State. In addition, a website, Facebook page, Twitter account,

and email distribution list have been created (which regularly reaches approximately 2,100 people

who have proactively requested updates on the Project). Project leaders developed a stakeholders

list prior to the public announcement in consultation with local community leaders located along the 

route. The initial list numbered over 150 and paid particular attention to counties and municipalities

along the route. Contact with each was made in the form of a call or visit from a team member and

this contact often resulted in additional requests for meetings or presentations.

Presentations, while providing the same basic content about the plans for the Proposed Action, were

customized geographically and by the nature of the audience. For example, an ongoing dialogue is 

occurring with multiple planning organizations and business organizations such as the Chambers of

Commerce.

AAF’s website invites questions and comments from any interested parties who have access to the

site. Each question or comment has received an informed response. While some visitors to the site

are potential vendors, many have comments and questions. Suggestions made have been taken

under advisement. The AAF website also provides links to project details and recent headlines 

regarding the Proposed Action. For example, the South Florida newspaper the Sun-Sentinel recently 

published an article describing the $6.4 billion in economic benefits that the Proposed Action would 

provide Florida’s economy over the next eight years.

The AAF public engagement strategy has also included a series of press releases to Florida press

outlets and over national wire services. Some of the press releases issued to date, and articles 

published online and in print are attached as part of Appendix B. Also, AAF has engaged in a series

of email blasts as the Project has developed, alerting interested parties of news about the Proposed 

Action. In addition, two twitter accounts have been established for the Proposed Action and it is 

anticipated that these will be utilized to provide news about the Proposed Action and also to alert

drivers – those who may be afforded the opportunity to ride the passenger rail – about how much

faster and more convenient it will be. This is designed to begin to build awareness for the service.

This public outreach serves to supplement efforts that have been undertaken by others, including the 

comprehensive program successfully employed by the South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit

Analysis Study (SFECCTA Study) managed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). As

reported in the Final Conceptual Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Screening Report

(January 2009), the majority of attendees at all meetings supported the proposal for passenger rail

service along the Corridor. That was found through the completion of a public outreach program

during the course of that SFECCTA Study that included:

• Over 230 public presentations and/or briefings, including the Elected Officials/Agency 

Representatives Kick-Off Meetings and the Public Kick-Off/Scoping Meetings;

• Over 50 meetings with technical and citizen review committees;

• Eleven (11) unscheduled meetings with interested parties such as homeowner

associations, grassroots organizations (e.g., Sierra Club) and civic groups;

• At least 20 “one-on-one” meetings with local business leaders; and

• Over 30 presentations given to Mayors, City Commissions, and City and Village Council

members and other elected officials.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-11

An outline of public involvement activities conducted throughout the planning process by AAF, as 

well as letters of agreement and support, are included in Tables 4-4 and 4-5.

Table 4-4. Community Outreach Data

Presentation Made To Type of Event Attendees Summary/Outcome

MAY 2013

Environmental Impact 

Statement Process scoping 

meeting/open house

Public meeting –

Miami

Environmental Impact 

Statement Process scoping 

meeting/open house

Public meeting –

West Palm Beach

Florida Transportation 

Commission

Presentation at 

public meeting

AAF staff provided an update at the 

quarterly FTC meeting.

Broward County NAACP Briefing Greg Durden AAF staff gave an overview on the

project and the Fort Lauderdale 

station location

Environmental Impact 

Statement Process scoping 

meeting/open house

Public meeting –

Fort Lauderdale

JUNE 2013

Miami-Dade County Citizen’s 

Independent Transportation 

Trust

Information table 

at public event 

AAF staff attended this widelyattended transportation summit that 

was attended by members of the 

public. 

Palm Beach Metropolitan 

Planning Organization

Presentation at 

monthly meeting

AAF staff gave an update on the 

project. The primary topics of 

discussion included the quiet zone 

process, safety improvements to 

grade crossings and schedule of 

crossing work.

AAF sponsored Minority, 

Disadvantaged and Womenowned Business Enterprises 

(MBE/DBE/WBE) and veteranowned small business (VOSB) 

and service-disabled veteranowned small business 

(SDVOSB) Outreach Forum

Event held in Fort 

Lauderdale

JULY 2013

Black Archives Meeting Dr. Dorothy 

Fields, Founder

Timothy Barber, 

Executive 

Director

AAF staff gave an overview on the

project and the plans for the future 

Miami station

AFL-CIO Miami Chapter Meeting Clarence 

Pittman, 

President

Ellis Canty, 

Treasurer

AAF staff gave an overview on the 

project and the plans for the future 

Miami station

Miami-Dade Citizen’s 

Independent Transportation 

Trust (CITT)

Presentation at 

monthly (public) 

meeting

CITT board, staff 

and members of 

the public

AAF staff provided an update of the 

project

West Palm Beach Downtown 

Development Authority 

Residential (DDA) Stakeholder 

summit

Public meeting

hosted by the 

DDA for 

downtown West 

Palm Beach 

residents and 

businesses

Approximately 50 

to 60 residents 

and business 

owners attended 

this public 

meeting that was 

held by the DDA 

AAF staff provided an overview of the 

project and answered any questions 

or concerns. Most 

concerns/questions were about noise 

and vibration impacts. The group 

would like to be kept up to speed as 

the project progresses.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-12

Table 4-4. Community Outreach Data (continued)

Presentation Made To Type of Event Attendees Summary/Outcome

AUGUST 2013

Council of Fort Lauderdale 

Civic Associations

Public meeting All of Fort 

Lauderdale’s 

civic and 

homeowners 

associations 

send a 

representative to 

this public 

meeting that is 

held monthly.

AAF presented an update on the 

project and specifically discussed the 

Fort Lauderdale station. The group 

asked questions about train 

schedules, freight train traffic, noise 

and vibration.

West Palm Beach Downtown 

Development Authority (DDA) 

Public Meeting on AAF

Public Meeting 

hosted by DDA

The DDA hosted a public meeting for 

the downtown’s residents and 

business owners. The audience 

asked questions about the West Palm 

Beach station, noise impacts and the 

quiet zone process. The City of West 

Palm Beach Mayor Jeri Muoio and 

Kim Delaney (TCRPC) were also in 

attendance answering questions. 

SEPTEMBER 2013

Overtown outreach meeting Outreach meeting 

coordinated by 

AAF

Community 

leaders/residents 

from Overtown

AAF hosted a small community 

outreach meeting for several key 

members in the Overtown community 

in advance of a bid submittal meeting 

that occurred the following week. 

While this meeting gave an overview 

on the Miami station, the AAF team 

also provided an overview on the 

project. 

Palm Beach MPO Public meeting AAF staff gave an update on the 

project. Discussed included questions 

on noise impacts, safety 

improvements, quiet zones and 

construction schedule.

Miami-Dade MPO Public meeting AAF staff provided an update on the 

project and the Miami station.

OCTOBER 2013

City of Miami District 5 

community meeting

Public meeting 

hosted by 

Commissioner 

Michelle Spence 

Jones

AAF was in 

attendance to 

answer questions 

about the project 

at a public 

community 

meeting held by 

the City

NOVEMBER 2013

City of Palm Bay Commission Presentation at 

public city 

commission 

meeting

AAF gave an overview on the project. 

Strong support was received from the 

Mayor and several commissioners. 

Questions were asked regarding the 

quiet zone process.

Urban League of Broward 

County

Briefing Germaine SmithBaugh, PresidentAAF provided an overview on the 

project. Germaine offered to help 
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-13

Table 4-4. Community Outreach Data (continued)

Presentation Made To Type of Event Attendees Summary/Outcome

JANUARY 2014

Village of El Portal Briefing City Manager 

Jason Walker

AAF staff gave an overview on the 

project. Mr. Walker asked questions 

about the quiet zone process. 

City of North Miami Beach Presentation at 

public meeting

AAF staff gave an overview on the 

project to the council at a monthly 

council meeting. The council 

members expressed support for 

intercity passenger rail.

MARCH 2014

Urban League of Miami Briefing Dr. T. Willard 

Fair

AAF staff provided an overview on 

the project.

MAY 2014

Sant La Briefing Gepsie Metellus, 

President

AAF staff provided an overview of the 

project and spoke to Gepsie on the 

best ways to interact with the Haitian 

community. Gepsie said the best way 

to reach the Haitian community is 

through TV and radio. She offered to 

help AAF educate the community.

Table 4-5. Letters and Agreements of Support

Date Document; Entity Signatory

May 10, 2012 Resolution No. 05-01-12; DDA of Fort 

Lauderdale

Gregory Durden, Chairman; Chris Wren, 

Executive Director

May 18, 2012 Resolution No. 23/2012; Miami DDA Commissioner Marc D. Sarnoff, Chairman; 

Alyce M. Robertson, Executive Director

July 23, 2012 Letter of Support; Florida State Hispanic 

Chamber of Commerce Julio Fuentes, President and CEO

July 24, 2012 Memorandum of Understanding; City of 

West Palm Beach Geraldine Muoio, Mayor

July 24, 2012 Letter of Support; Broward MPO Gregory Stuart, Executive Director

July 24, 2012 Letter of Support; South Florida 

Regional Planning Council James F. Murley, Executive Director

July 24, 2012 Letter of Support; Hialeah Chamber of 

Commerce & Industries Mandy Llanes, Chairman

July 24, 2012 Letter of Support; Greater Fort 

Lauderdale Alliance, Broward County Bob Swindell, President and CEO

July 25, 2012 Letter of Support; Coral Gables 

Chamber of Commerce Mark A. Trowbridge, President and CEO

July 31, 2012 Letter of Support; Broward County Bertha W. Henry

July 31, 2012 Memorandum of Understanding; City of 

Miami Johnny Martinez, City Manager

July 31, 2012 Letter of Support, Florida Chamber of 

Commerce David A. Hart, Executive Vice President

August 31, 2012 Resolution Miami-Dade Beacon Council

4.6.1 Community Outreach and Public Involvement

The general public was invited to scoping meetings held by the FRA for AAF’s proposed high-speed 

passenger rail service from Miami to Orlando, for which an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is 

being drafted by the FRA. This Environmental Justice Assessment focuses on the “Project” detailed 

in the October 2012 EA published by the FRA. The public scoping meetings were held in 

environmental justice communities (in Miami and West Palm Beach) or adjacent to such 

communities (in Fort Lauderdale) in the vicinity of the Proposed Action as part of the public scoping

process:
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-14

• May 6, 2013 from 3:30 to 7:00 pm at the Culmer Center, 1600 NW 3rd Ave., Miami (located

within census tract 003100);

• May 7, 2013 from 3:30 to 7:00 pm at the Gaines Park Community Center, 1505 N. Australian 

Ave., West Palm Beach (located within census tract 002100); and

• May 29, 2013 from 3:30 to 7:00 pm at the Holiday Park Social Center, 1150 G. Harold Martin 

Drive, Fort Lauderdale (located within census tract 041801).

These locations were selected with a consideration of accessibility by environmental justice 

communities, such as mass transit and pedestrian options.

Public meetings were noticed in seven (7) newspapers published and available in various locations 

near the area of the Proposed Action. Notices were published on several dates. These included The 

Palm Beach Post, a daily newspaper published in Palm Beach County, FL; the Sun Sentinel

published daily in Broward County, Palm Beach County, and Miami-Dade County, FL; El Nuevo 

Herald and the Miami Herald published daily in Miami; el Sentinel published weekly in Broward and 

Palm Beach County, FL; El Latino Semanal published weekly in Palm Beach County; and Haiti en 

Marche, published in the tri-county South Florida area. The public notices were published in English, 

Spanish (El Nuevo Herald, La Voz, Florida Today, El Latino Semanal, and el Sentinel Broward), and 

Haitian Creole (Haiti en Marche). The notice directed readers to the web page 

www.AllAboardFlorida.com, where additional information was available. The notices stated that 

accommodations would be provided for attendees requiring additional assistance in accordance with 

the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Approximately 340 people attended the Public Scoping Meetings (125 in Miami, 136 in West Palm 

Beach, and 80 in Fort Lauderdale). Meeting attendees were asked to register at the meeting so that 

a project mailing list could be created. This mailing list was used by the FRA to update the public

and agencies on subsequent public involvement opportunities (including meetings) and to

disseminate additional information on the proposed project. Attendees received the following 

meeting materials:

• All Aboard Florida Information Sheet; and

• Public Comment and Opinion Survey Forms.

FRA’s representatives were available to address questions regarding the purpose and need for the 

proposed project, the environmental studies to be conducted, and the scope of environmental 

review. Representatives of AAF also provided information on the proposed Project. The meeting

format was an open-house style where attendees were encouraged to view the various exhibits that 

were placed around the room, and to direct questions to representatives of FRA. Freestanding 

exhibit boards were placed throughout the meeting area for participants to review. Large aerial maps 

depicting the proposed Project Area were also presented at each scoping meeting.

4.6.2 Comments from Public Meetings

Comments submitted at the public scoping meetings are provided in Appendix B. These comments 

are summarized in this subsection.

4.6.2.1 Miami

The public scoping meeting was held at the Culmer Center, 1600 NW 3rd Ave., Miami (located within 

census tract 003100) from 3:30 to 7:00 pm on May 6, 2013. One-hundred-twenty-five (125) people 

attended the meeting, and most of those indicated they were representing a local government 

agency, business, or non-governmental organization. Approximately 20 persons indicated they were 

not representing any organization. Sixty-two (62) attendees submitted either comments or completed 

a survey questionnaire. In response to whether they were “for” or “against” the Project, 60

respondents stated they were “for” the Project and none stated they were “against”. Although not 

typically stated, most supplied related comments indicating they were “for” based on transportation 
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-15

convenience and alternatives, energy efficiency generating air quality benefits, and potential benefits 

to economic development.

Four (4) comments expressed the opinion that the architecture of the proposed station requires 

careful consideration, for example “The station location in downtown Miami needs to incorporate the 

pedestrian experience of the station as a significant/signature public space on the street level.”

Approximately five (5) commenters addressed the impact of the Project on the Overtown 

neighborhood, specifically, “The corridor fragments parts of the City of Miami, in particular Overtown 

from Downtown, as a result of dead end streets”, and addressing the need for pedestrian and 

vehicular crossings at specific locations. Several commenters anticipated and encouraged economic 

development potential of the project for the Overtown neighborhood and residents, and one (1) 

recommended aesthetic and historical amenities at the Miami station recognizing the historic 

relationship between the Overtown neighborhood and the railroad.

4.6.2.2 West Palm Beach

The public scoping meeting was held at the Gaines Park Community Center, 1505 N. Australian 

Ave., West Palm Beach (approximately 1 mile from the Station Assessment Area) from 3:30 to 7:00 

pm on May 7, 2013. One-hundred-thirty-six (136) persons attended the meeting, and most of those 

indicated they were representing a local government agency, business, or non-governmental 

organization. Approximately 26 persons indicated they were not representing any organization.

Sixty-six (66) attendees submitted either comments or completed a survey questionnaire. In 

response to whether they were “for” or “against” the Project, 52 respondents stated they were “for” 

the Project and three (3) stated they were “against”. The most common comment associated with 

respondents who were “for” related to economic development benefits, the need for alternative 

modes of transportation, and reduction in auto traffic leading to safer roads. The most common 

concerns mentioned by those who were “against” the Project related to noise and vibration, and the 

proposed closing of Datura and Evernia street grade crossings in West Palm Beach.

Eight (8) meeting attendees expressed concern about crossing closings and impact on east-west 

traffic in West Palm Beach. Five (5) of these specifically discussed the planned closing of the grade 

crossings at Datura and Evernia Streets, where provision of elevated pedestrian crossings was 

strongly recommended. Eight (8) comments were received expressing the need for support to local 

communities to facilitate construction of safety improvements at crossings. Facilitation of intermodal 

connectivity was encouraged by approximately six (6) commenters. Concerns about emergency 

vehicle access at specific locations in West Palm Beach and Jupiter were raised by five (5) 

attendees. Five (5) commenters recommended consideration of more stops and suggested Boca 

Raton, Vero Beach, and Riviera Beach.

The benefit of the project in general reduction of traffic on local highways, specifically Interstate 95, 

was presented by five (5) attendees. 

4.6.2.3 Fort Lauderdale

The public scoping meeting was held at Holiday Park Social Center, 1150 G. Harold Martin Drive, 

Fort Lauderdale (approximately 0.6 miles from the Station Assessment Area) from 3:30 to 7:00 pm

on May 29, 2013. Eighty (80) persons attended the meeting, and most of those indicated they were 

representing a local government agency, business, or homeowner association. Approximately 13

persons indicated they were not representing any organization. Twenty (20) attendees submitted 

either comments or completed a survey questionnaire. In response to whether they were “for” or 

“against” the Project, 16 respondents stated they were “for” the Project and none indicated they were 

“against”. The most common comment associated with respondents who were “for” related to 

economic development potential and transportation alternatives.

Two (2) comments were received requesting assessment of cumulative and secondary impacts. 

One of these mentioned concern regarding gentrification of low-income or minority neighborhoods in 
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

4-16

the vicinity of the station. Two (2) comments addressed the aesthetics of the station design or the 

corridor.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

5-1

5.0 Community Enhancement

Although several locations throughout the Assessment Areas contain meaningfully greater

environmental justice populations, this analysis does not show disproportionate impacts to these 

populations in relation to the rest of the population. Accordingly, mitigation for impacts to 

environmental justice populations is not required.

Extensive public involvement is a crucial component of the Project, and ongoing public participation 

will be facilitated and is encouraged to benefit the overall goal of community enhancement. Given 

the existence of environmental justice populations and other communities of concern within the 

Assessment Areas, AAF will continue public involvement and outreach activities as the project 

progresses. AAF will work to tailor these activities to be most-inclusive of environmental justice

populations and other communities of concern.

AAF has also committed to a number of measures to support and enhance the goals of the 

community, including:

• Establish a community improvement fund;

• Promote recruitment and advertisement of jobs for minority and women owned businesses within 

the City of Miami;

• Hold job fairs during construction and post construction for local area residents; and

• Monitor and review personnel practices to guarantee that equal opportunities are being provided 

to all employees regardless of race, color, place of birth religion, national origin, sex, age marital 

status, veterans and disability status.

The construction of the AAF stations in both Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach will enable 

mobility to increase for the surrounding environmental justice populations as well as provide the 

opportunity for increased services that would not otherwise be provided without the passenger rail 

service being initiated. These benefits, as well as the initiatives that AAF has agreed to implement in 

the vicinity of the Miami Station, have the ability to enhance the environmental justice communities

located in the Station Assessment Areas. There are no resulting disproportionate impacts to these 

populations in relation to the rest of the population under the Proposed Action. Accordingly, 

mitigation for impacts to environmental justice populations is not required.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

6-1

6.0 References

1. US Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration. January 2013. Finding of No 

Significant Impact for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project, West Palm Beach to Miami, 

Florida.

2. USDOT. 1996. Community Impact Assessment: A quick Reference for 

Transportation. http://www.ciatrans.net/CIA_Quick_Reference/Purpose.html

3. United States Census Bureau (USCB); 2010 US Census Tracts in Florida (with Selected Fields 

from 2010 Redistricting Summary File and Summary File 1); dated March 17, 2011; obtained 

online at http://www.census.gov, March 2013.

4. United States Census Bureau (USCB); 2010 Census Block Groups in Florida (with Selected 

Fields from the 2007-2011 American Community Survey); dated December 6, 2012; obtained 

online at http://www.census.gov, April, 2014.

5. United States Census Bureau (USCB); 2010 US Census Tracts in Florida (with Selected Fields 

from 2010 Redistricting Summary File and Summary File 1); dated March 17, 2011; obtained 

online at http://www.census.gov, March 2013.

6. United States Census Bureau (USCB); 2010 Census Block Groups in Florida (with Selected 

Fields from the 2007-2011 American Community Survey); dated December 6, 2012; obtained 

online at http://www.census.gov, April, 2014.

7. United States Census Bureau (USCB); American Community Survey; obtained online at 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www, June 2013.

8. Florida Department of Transportation. 2000. Community Impact Assessment: A Handbook for 

Transportation Professionals

9. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. April 2014. All Aboard Florida – Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and 

West Palm Beach Traffic Impact Analyses.

10. All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) 

Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. 

Available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278.

11. Florida Department of Transportation Research, 2007. Vehicle Occupancy Data Collection 

Methods (Phase II). BD015-14. Published December, 2007.

12. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. April 2014. All Aboard Florida – Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and 

West Palm Beach Traffic Impact Analyses. 

13. Miami Economics Associates, Inc. and Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. March 4, 2013. 

Economic and Fiscal Benefits Generated by All Aboard Florida.

14. The Washington Economics Group, Inc. Economic Impacts of the All Aboard Florida Intercity 

Passenger Rail Project. May 20, 2014. Available 

at: http://www.allaboardflorida.com/files/economic-impact-full-report.pdf

15. Miami Downtown Development Authority. October 2009. 2025 Downtown Miami Master Plan.
Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 June 2014

6-2

16. City of Fort Lauderdale. November 2003, updated with May 2007 Master Plan Update. Fort 

Lauderdale: Building a Livable Downtown. Consolidated Downtown Master Plan for the City of 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

17. Palm Beach County Planning Division (PBCPD), Palm Beach County, Florida, 2012. 

Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element. Website accessed March 

2013: http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/pzb/planning/comprehensive plan/tableofcontent.htm.
Appendix A

Examples of Limited English Proficiency

Public Involvement and Outreach Materials
Page: Locales_2 Pub. date: Wednesday, April 17 Last user: cci Edition: 1st Section, zone: Local, Herald Last change at: 23:19:57 April 16

2B E1 elnuevoherald.com ■ MIERCOLES 17 DE ABRIL DEL 2013 

■ Subscripciones: 1 800 843-4372

■ Anuncios clasificados: 305-376-2111

■ Otros anuncios: 305-376-2700

■ Para la entrega de su periódico: 1 800 843-4372

■ Empezando el 2 de mayo, nuestro horario de servicio será:

Lunes a jueves: 7:00 a.m. a 4:30 p.m.

Viernes: 7:00 a.m. a 3:30 p.m.

Fines de semana y dias festivos: 7:00 a.m. a 11:00 a.m.

■ Para servicio al suscriptor www.elnuevoherald.com/servicio

¿No le han entregado su periódico? Si no ha recibido su diariio antes de las 6

a.m. (7:30 a.m. fines de semana) en Miami-Dade o Broward, llame al

1-800-THEHERALD (1-800-843-4372) para pedir que una copia de reemplazo

sea entregada al día siguiente o solicitar un crédito a su cuenta. La veracidad

de la noticia es importante para nosotros. Favor de comunicarnos cualquier

error, aclaración u omisión.

DEPARTAMENTOS DE NOTICIAS:

■ Mesa de Redacción: 305-376-2285

■ Galería y entretenimiento: 305-376-2183

■ Revista Viernes: 305-376-2135

■ Deportes: 305-376-3549

■ Fotografía: 305-376-3582

■ Perspectiva/Opiniones: 305-376-2166

perspectiva@elnuevoherald.com

■ Moneda: 305-376-2226

■ General: 305-376-3535

EJECUTIVOS DE LA REDACCIÓN

Manny García Director

305-376-3445 magarcia@elnuevoherald.com

Teresa Frontado Subdirectora

305-376-3545 tfrontado@elnuevoherald.com

Andrés Hernández-Alende Coordinator Perspectiva

305-376-2166 anhernandez@elnuevoherald.com

Maru Antuñano Editora de Galería

305-376-2183 mantunano@elnuevoherald.com

Jorge Ebro Editor de Deportes

305-376-3549 jebro@elnuevoherald.com

Orlando Mellado Jefe de Fotografía

305-376-3582 omellado@elnuevoherald.com

Luis F. López Jefe de Información

305-376-2239 llopez@elnuevoherald.com

AUTORIZACIÓN PARA REIMPRIMIR:

El contenido de información que aparece en El Nuevo Herald está protegido por

el Federal Copyright Act (la ley de derechos de autor). No se permiten reproducciones sin permiso por escrito. Para solicitar autorización llame a los siguientes

números. Fotos y gráficas: 305-376-3774, fax: 305-376-2287; artículos/textos:

Reprint Management Services, 1-888-414-4534; ediciones atrasadas:

305-995-8183 o por email a: backissues@miamiherald.com.

ENTREGA A DOMICILIO

En Miami Dade: suscripción anual, $180.27; siete días, $116.84; jueves a

domingo, $80.12 sábado y domingo.

En Broward County: suscripción anual, $178.59; siete días, $115.75; jueves a

domingo, $79.37 sábado y domingo.

En Monroe County: suscripción anual, $181.95; siete días, $117.39; jueves a

domingo, $80.50 sábado y domingo.

Diario digital: $6.95 mensuales. Precio del periódico en máquinas; diario $0.50,

y domingos $1.00. en estanquillos, diario $0.50 y domingos $1.00 más

impuestos.

Cómo contactarnos

LOCALES

Snezana Radnovic 

Ex alumna del MDC

Enfermera Certifi cada

University of Miami Hospital

Yo Soy

MDC

 www.mdcalumni.com

Únete a la Red de Ex Alumnos

Aviso Público

Reunión Comunitaria

del Departamento de Obras Públicas y Administración de 

Desechos Proyecto # 20110085

Construcción de la Calle 152 del Suroeste desde la 157 Avenida 

hasta la 147 Avenida

Por este medio se notifica que el Departamento de Obras Públicas y Administración de Desechos del 

Condado Miami-Dade ofrecerá una reunión comunitaria relacionada con el proyecto número 20110085, 

el miércoles 24 de abril del 2013, desde las 6:30 p.m. hasta las 8:00 p.m., en la cafetería del colegio 

de enseñanza primaria Norma Butler Bossard ubicado en el 15950 SW 144 Calle.

Esta reunión comunitaria será efectuada con el propósito de informar a los residentes y dueños de negocios 

del área sobre este proyecto, el cual consistirá en la ampliación de la 152 calle del Suroeste a 4 carriles 

desde la 157 Avenida hasta la 147 Avenida. El proyecto incluirá la instalación de: separadores central de 

tráfico; vegetación; aceras; contenes y cunetas; demarcación de pavimento; señales de tráfico; senda para 

bicicletas; alumbrado; y un sistema de drenaje nuevo.

Los fondos para este proyecto serán del Road Impact Fee, de acuerdo con la Sección 33E del Código del 

Condado de Miami-Dade. 

Documentos relacionados con el proyecto, planos, mapas, dibujos, e información adicional preparada por 

el Departamento estarán disponibles al público en el sitio previamente mencionado comenzando a las 

6:30 p.m. hasta las 8:00 p.m. La primera parte de la reunión ofrecerá a los presentes la oportunidad de 

observar los planos de diseño del proyecto y poder discutir las mejoras propuestas con los funcionarios 

presentes. En la segunda parte que comenzará aproximadamente a las 7:00 p.m., tendrá lugar una breve 

presentación por parte de los funcionarios, seguida por una sesión reservada para preguntas y respuestas 

de los participantes.

Es la política del Condado Miami-Dade cumplir con todos los artículos de la Ley de los Americanos 

Minusválidos del año 1990 (American with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990). El edificio en el cual se llevará a 

cabo esta reunión es accesible a personas minusválidas. Para conseguir intérpretes, audífonos o cualquier 

otra clase de asistencia relacionada con este beneficio, por favor comunicarse al teléfono (305) 375-4662 

con cinco (5) días laborables de anticipación a la fecha de la reunión.

Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre este proyecto, favor de llamar al Departamento al 305-514-6653. 

que todo esto empezó en marzo,

sin cumplir con los estatutos.

Además nunca se ha registrado

formalmente las razones del supuesto revocatorio”.

A su llegada al edificio municipal, Brito protagonizó un careo con el alcalde de Doral, Luigi

Boria, a quien criticó por la sorpresiva aprobación de una norma que limita la organización de

referéndums revocatorios en esa

ciudad.

“No entiendo cómo una ciudad puede hacer esto”, le dijo

Brito a Boria delante de varios

periodistas que cubrían la anunciada entrega de firmas. “Encima con esto se aprueba el uso de

fondos públicos para defender [a

u n a a u t o r i d a d ] d e u n

revocatorio”.

Boria no dudó en responderle

a Brito en público: “esta es una

ordenanza que establece que un

revocatorio podrá ser organizado contra una misma autoridad

una vez al año”.

Boria dijo que la medida busca

garantizar la gobernabilidad de

la administración municipal de

Doral y el ahorro de recursos públicos, ya que recalcó que cada

referéndum revocatorio tiene

un costo de $100,000, el cual es pagado con fondos de esa ciudad.

“Si en el caso de la vicealcaldesa esta solicitud de referéndum

que promueve la señorita Vanessa Britto no prospera se deberá

esperar un año para volver a organizar una campaña similar”,

indicó Boria. “Debe haber un periodo de tiempo para que el gobierno pueda trabajar, y deben

dejarlo trabajar”.

Brito había anunciado que la

entrega de las planillas con las

firmas la realizaría al mediodía

al Departamento de Elecciones

de Miami-Dade. Sin embargo,

una funcionaria de ese departamento, Carolina López, precisó

que el trámite debía realizarse

ante la secretaría municipal de

Doral. Brito se quejó de haber sid o m a l o r i e n t a d a p o r e s a

secretaría.

“Lo importante es que ya cumplimos con entregar estas firmas”, enfatizó Brito.

La secretaria municipal Bárbara Herrera le dijo a Brito que

enviaría copias de las planillas

al Departamento de Elecciones,

la cual se encargará de la verificación de firmas, proceso que tomaría cerca de un mes. 

Alegan conducta indebida de la funcionaria

FIRMAS VIENE DE LA PÁGINA 1B

conmovedora debido a que

si hubiera hecho caso omiso de la orden de deportación y se hubiera quedado

ilegalmente, en la actualidad probablemente tendría

estatus legal.

“Si me hubiera quedado

ya habría sido capaz de permanecer bajo la orden del

DREAM Act”, dijo.

Habría podido solicitar

legalización temporal bajo

el programa del presidente

Barack Obama, conocido

como Acción Diferida para

Llegadas en la Infancia

(DACA, por sus siglas en

inglés). Este programa

concede dos años de estatus legal a inmigrantes jóvenes traídos a Estados

Unidos por sus padres

cuando eran niños.

Pero Paola y su familia

prefirieron obedecer la orden de deportación para no

ser considerados fugitivos

de la ley de inmigración.

Por hacer eso Paola fue castigada doblemente bajo la

ley de inmigración porque

se vio obligada a salir de

Estados Unidos y ahora se

le ha prohibido regresar

por 10 años.

Las peripecias migratorias de Paola comenzaron

el 13 de junio de 1999, cuando sus padres decidieron

abandonar Colombia por

amenazas de la guerrilla y

huyeron a Miami.

En un intento por permanecer legalmente, los padres pidieron asilo pero les

fue negado y tuvieron que

irse en el 2009.

En lugar de esperar a que

agentes federales los deportaran a Colombia, la familia optó por viajar Dubai, donde tienen familiares. En ese momento, decidieron evitar Colombia a

causa de persistentes temores sobre la guerrilla.

Una semana antes de

partir, Paola y Bruce se casaron en la casa de Bruce

en Palmetto Bay. Los dos se

habían conocido tres años

antes como estudiantes en

la Universidad Internacional de la Florida (FIU), donde ella estudió Biología y él

Ingeniería Eléctrica. Pero

en lugar de luna de miel,

ella se fue con sus padres a

Dubai.

Después de dos meses en

Dubai, la familia decidió

regresar a Colombia después de enterarse de que

las condiciones de seguridad habían mejorado desde

su huida original en 1999.

En Bogotá Paola Eckel se

ha mudado a un apartamento donde vive con una

compañera de trabajo. Enseña inglés en Berlitz.

Se mantiene en contacto

con su esposo en Miami a

través del servicio de telefonía por Internet. Pasan

horas hablando y mirándose uno al otro. En la noche,

Bruce cena hablando son

su esposa, cuya cara ve en

su iPad.

En la reciente entrevista

vía iPad, Paola describió

su vida en Bogotá.

“Aquí me siento como

una abuela”, dijo. “Nunca

salgo y si salgo es por lo general con mis padres”.

Bruce viaja a Bogotá con

frecuencia para estar con

su esposa.

“Por lo general, me quedo alrededor de una semana o dos y un par de veces

me he quedado durante un

mes”, dijo Bruce.

Mientras tanto, la pareja

ha iniciado el largo proceso

para que Paola pueda regresar legalmente.

En febrero del 2010, Bruce presentó el formulario

I-130, la petición a las autoridades migratorias para

que se otorgue una visa de

inmigrante a su esposa. La

petición fue aprobada en la

primavera del 2011 y la pareja se presentó ante un

cónsul en la embajada estadounidense en Bogotá nueve meses después.

Ahí es donde el mayor

obstáculo surgió por primera vez.

La cónsul, que estaba al

tanto de la prohibición de

10 años de no poder regresar a Estados Unidos, pidió

que llenaran el formulario

I-212, una solicitud titulada

Permiso para Volver a Solicitar Admisión a Estados

Unidos Después de una

Deportación.

La pareja dijo que presentaron la petición en febrero del 2012, pero no está

claro si la enviaron a la oficina correcta. Sin embargo, Bruce Eckel insiste que

siguió las instrucciones correctamente porque éstas

dicen que el formulario debe ser enviado a la oficina

con jurisdicción sobre el

lugar donde tuvo lugar el

proceso de deportación.

Por ahora, tienen la esperanza de que la publicación

de su historia haga que las

autoridades de inmigración aceleren la aprobación del caso.

Una funcionaria del Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos (USCIS), dijo que su

agencia no podía discutir

detalles del caso debido a

leyes de privacidad.

“Pero USCIS decide cada

caso por sus méritos y los

requisitos de la Ley de Inm i g r a c i ó n y

Nacionalidad”.

Contrajo matrimonio con un ciudadano estadounidense

DEPORTADA VIENE DE LA PÁGINA 1B

tener miedo”.

Entonces, mientras las autoridades en Boston continuaban su investigación sobre el ataque, más de 500

personas vestidas de blanco salieron

a correr en solidaridad con las víctimas. Llevaban papeles al estilo de los

pecheros que se utilizan en las carreras con las palabras “Boston, Corredores Unidos en el recuerdo” y la hora que marcaba el reloj del maratón

cuando estalló la primera bomba:

4:15:13.

Antes de empezar, los participantes mantuvieron el silencio por 26.2

segundos para respetar las 26.2 millas que se corren durante un maratón. Luego escucharon el himno nacional, mientras un grupo de corredores aguantaba una enorme bandera estadounidense -- la misma

bandera que se utiliza durante el Maratón de Miami de ING cada enero.

“Todavía estoy en un shock”, dijo

Carla Anguiano. “Se me quiebra al

vos solo en pensar lo que las familias,

los hijos, los maridos, que estaban esperando al final, para celebrar lo que

debía ser una victoria, y que luego

fueran victimas de esto”.

Anguiano, como muchos de los corredores que participaron el martes,

es una cara familiar en el Brickell

Running Club, una organización informal y gratuita. Pero muchos de

los corredores que llegaron el martes por la tarde dijeron que era su prim e r a v e z p a r t i c i p a r e n e s t a

actividad.

Entre los novatos a la organización: Jim y Melissa Matheis, quienes

llevaron su hijo de 3 años al evento,

Gavin, en un coche de bebés.

“En muchas ocasiones yo estoy al

final de la carrera, esperando a mi esposo con nuestro hijo”, dijo Melissa

Matheis, con lagrimas en sus ojos.

“Pienso en el niño de 8 años que murió, y es imposible no pensar en nuestro hijo”.

El comisionado de Miami, Francis

Suárez, llego una hora antes del

evento para saludar a Ruiz, un antiguo amigo, y demostrar su apoyo por

el evento en honor a las victimas.

“Estamos horrorizados por lo que

paso en Boston, y yo se que mucha

gente aquí en Miami se preguntaba

si nuestra ciudad también iba ser

afectada, si habrían ataques coordinados en otras ciudades”, dijo Suárez. “Como un funcionario electo,

hay que apoyar no solamente a los residentes de tu propia ciudad, pero

tras eventos de esta magnitud hay

que respaldar a los residentes de todo el país”.

Fabiola Morales dijo que había calificado para el maratón en Boston,

pero decidió no ir por compromisos

del trabajo.

“Tengo amigos que participaron, y

afortunadamente nada les paso”, dijo Morales. “Pero me pongo a pensar

que yo también pude haber estado

allí”.

Más de 500 personas de Miami salieron

a correr en solidaridad con las víctimas

VIGILIA VIENE DE LA PÁGINA 1B Antes de empezar, los participantes mantuvieron

el silencio por 26.2 segundos para respetar las

26.2 millas que se corren durante un maratón.

2 27 ABRIL-3 MAYO DE 2013 » EL SENTINEL » ELSENTINEL.COM

Los funcionarios estatales están

alertando a las personasmayores para

que se cuiden del robo de identidad,

después de haber recibido reportes de

personas que han hecho llamadas

imprevistas alegando que necesitan

información personal para enviarles

su “nueva” tarjeta de identidad.

El Florida Department of Elder

Affairs (departamento de Florida para asuntos de los ancianos) indica que

las personas que están haciendo las

llamadas dicen ser del “Health and

Welfare Department” (Departamento

de salud y bienestar) y luego le piden a

las víctimas sus cuentas de banco,

fecha de nacimiento y números de

Medicare.

La agencia desea alertar a las

personas y dejarles saber que Medicare jamás hace llamadas imprevistas y

nunca pide ese tipo de información

por teléfono.

Al Payne, quien administra la oficina Seniors vs. Crime (ancianos vs. el

crimen) de la oficina del Fiscal General de Florida en Delray Beach, dice

que su programa ha recibido quejas

similares de ancianos en el sur de

Florida en las últimas semanas.

“Simplemente les aconsejamos colgar”, dijo Payne.

Hasta ahoraPayne dice que nadie lo

ha contactado por haber caído en la

trampa.

El sur de Florida es uno de las

regiones con mayor índice de robos de

identidad, con 35,914 reportes en 2012

provenientes de los condados de Broward, Palm Beach y Miami-Dade,

según la Comisión Federal de Comercio.

Los ancianos son particularmente

vulnerables, debido en parte a que sus

tarjetas de identificación de Medicare

incluye su número de Seguro Social.

El fraude de la “nueva tarjeta de

Medicare” fue usado por criminales

unos dos años atrás. Entre otros

fraudes comunes están: ancianos contactados para pedirles sus cuentas de

banco para depositarles su “Reembolso deMedicare” o alegando que tienen

suministros médicos gratis.

Más sobre consumidor en elsentinel-

.com.

CONSUMIDOR> MEDICARE

Alerta: Fraude con “nueva tarjeta”

No se debe dar información por teléfono sobre cuentas de banco ni seguro social

Rocco Fasulo, de Fort Lauderdale, ha tachado el número de su Seguro Social en su tarjeta de Medicare.

El hombre jubilado se opone a que su número de Seguro Social aparezca en la tarjeta de Medicare.

AMY BETH BENNETT/EL SENTINEL

Por Diane C. Lade

EL SENTINEL

Medicare

jamás hace

llamadas

imprevistas

y nunca

pide información por

teléfono.

Entrega a domicilio:

954-749-4652 (HOLA) o

561-243-6543 (customer service)

Howard Greenberg

PUBLISHER

Deborah Ramírez

DIRECTORA EDITORIAL

954-356-4085

dpramirez@elsentinel.com

Michael Vinales

GERENTE DEPUBLICIDAD

954-747-3074

mvinales@sunsentinel.com

Marcia Quallo-Lange

GERENTE DE VENTAS DE

ASOCIACIONES DE LA

COMUNIDAD

954-385-7981

mquallolange@tribune.com

Tom Nork

DIRECTOR DE CIRCULACIÓN

1-800-548-6397

tnork@sunsentinel.com

Clasificados:

1-800-250-2000

Publicidad: 954-356-4110

Correo:

El Sentinel

500 East Broward Blvd., #900

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394

sunsentinel.com/elsentinel

Vea en nuestrapáginaWeb

Elsentinel.comfotos recientes del embarazo de

Catherine, Duquesa de

Cambridge.

facebook.com/SentinelFL

twitter.com/ElSentinel

elsentinel.com

EVITE EL FRAUDE DE MEDICARE

Nunca dé información personal a personas que los llaman

repentinamente.

En lugar del original, cargue con usted una copia de su tarjeta de

Medicare, y tache el número. Lleve el original sólo cuando vaya a las visitas

con el médico.

Si sospecha fraude, inmediatamente llame a Medicare al 800-447-8477.

Para encontrar el programa Seniors vs. Crime más cercano a usted, el

cual también recibe reportes de fraudes, llame al 800-203-3099.

El programa Serving Health Insurance Needs of Elders (SHINE), que

funciona con fondos estatales, también puede responder sus dudas.

Llame al 800-963-5337.

Para información llame al (561) 655-2833

o visite www.flaglermuseum.us

Cuando se terminó de construir en 1902, Whitehall, la mansión de Henry

Flagler en Palm Beach, fue descrita por el diario New York Herald como “la más

maravillosa que cualquier palacio europeo, y más magnífica que cualquier otra

residencia privada del mundo.”

Hoy en día, Whitehall goza de fama nacional y está abierta al público con el

nombre del Museo de Flagler, con giras, exhibiciones y programas especiales.

Ahora la entrada incluye audífonos con guía en idioma español. Aprenda más acerca

de la influencia de Henry Flagler en el desarrollo de la Florida durante la Epoca Dorada.

¡Ahora gira con audífonos en idioma español!

Descubra Una de las Casas Museos

más Grandiosas de America UNA MANERA RÁPIDA

DE CUMPLIR CON LO PROMETIDO

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MIRAMAR

WOMEN’S CENTER

LUNCH&GO

MAMOGRAFÍA

A LA HORA DEL ALMUERZO

DE LUNES A VIERNES

DEL 1o AL 31 DE MAYO DE 2013

11AM – 2PM

SE SUMINISTRARÁN CAJAS CON ALMUERZO

El Women’s Imaging Center del Memorial Hospital

Miramar la invita a dedicarle un poco de su tiempo a

cuidar su salud. Venga a la hora del descanso para

almorzar y hágase una mamografía de rutina.

Para pedir cita, favor llamar al 954-276-5500

y mencione este ofrecimiento.

Para poder participar no puede haber tenido una mamografía en los últimos

12 meses ni haber tenido antes cáncer ni complicaciones mamarias.

Las participantes NO recibirán los resultados al momento del examen.

Para hacerse una mamografía de rutina, las participantes tienen que:

• Ser mayores de 35 años • Presentar la orden médica

• Traer una tarjeta de seguro o pagar $50.00*

1901 Southwest 172 Avenue, Miramar, Florida 33029 • MemorialMiramar.com

* EL PACIENTE Y CUALQUIER OTRA PERSONA RESPONSABLE DE PAGAR TIENE EL DERECHO A NEGARSE A PAGAR, CANCELAR EL

PAGO OASER REEMBOLSADO POR EL PAGO DE CUALQUIER OTRO SERVICIO, EXAMEN O TRATAMIENTO QUE SEA REALIZADO COMO

RESULTADO, Y DENTRO DE 72 HORAS, DE HABER RESPONDIDO A ESTE ANUNCIO PARA EL SERVICIO, EXAMEN O TRATAMIENTO

GRATIS, CON PRECIO DE DESCUENTO O REBAJADO. PODRÍA HABER OTRAS CONDICIONES.
Page: Locales_2 Pub. date: Wednesday, April 24 Last user: cci Edition: 1st Section, zone: Local, Herald Last change at: 22:42:42 April 23

2B E1 elnuevoherald.com ■ MIERCOLES 24 DE ABRIL DEL 2013 

■ Subscripciones: 1 800 843-4372

■ Anuncios clasificados: 305-376-2111

■ Otros anuncios: 305-376-2700

■ Para la entrega de su periódico: 1 800 843-4372

■ Empezando el 2 de mayo, nuestro horario de servicio será:

Lunes a jueves: 7:00 a.m. a 4:30 p.m.

Viernes: 7:00 a.m. a 3:30 p.m.

Fines de semana y dias festivos: 7:00 a.m. a 11:00 a.m.

■ Para servicio al suscriptor www.elnuevoherald.com/servicio

¿No le han entregado su periódico? Si no ha recibido su diariio antes de las 6

a.m. (7:30 a.m. fines de semana) en Miami-Dade o Broward, llame al

1-800-THEHERALD (1-800-843-4372) para pedir que una copia de reemplazo

sea entregada al día siguiente o solicitar un crédito a su cuenta. La veracidad

de la noticia es importante para nosotros. Favor de comunicarnos cualquier

error, aclaración u omisión.

DEPARTAMENTOS DE NOTICIAS:

■ Mesa de Redacción: 305-376-2285

■ Galería y entretenimiento: 305-376-2183

■ Revista Viernes: 305-376-2135

■ Deportes: 305-376-3549

■ Fotografía: 305-376-3582

■ Perspectiva/Opiniones: 305-376-2166

perspectiva@elnuevoherald.com

■ Moneda: 305-376-2226

■ General: 305-376-3535

EJECUTIVOS DE LA REDACCIÓN

Manny García Director

305-376-3445 magarcia@elnuevoherald.com

Teresa Frontado Subdirectora

305-376-3545 tfrontado@elnuevoherald.com

Andrés Hernández-Alende Coordinator Perspectiva

305-376-2166 anhernandez@elnuevoherald.com

Maru Antuñano Editora de Galería

305-376-2183 mantunano@elnuevoherald.com

Jorge Ebro Editor de Deportes

305-376-3549 jebro@elnuevoherald.com

Orlando Mellado Jefe de Fotografía

305-376-3582 omellado@elnuevoherald.com

Luis F. López Jefe de Información

305-376-2239 llopez@elnuevoherald.com

AUTORIZACIÓN PARA REIMPRIMIR:

El contenido de información que aparece en El Nuevo Herald está protegido

por el Federal Copyright Act (la ley de derechos de autor). No se permiten

reproducciones sin permiso por escrito. Para solicitar autorización llame a los

siguientes números. Fotos y gráficas: 305-376-3774, fax: 305-376-2287;

artículos/textos: Reprint Management Services, 1-888-414-4534; ediciones

atrasadas: 305-995-8183 o por email a: backissues@miamiherald.com.

ENTREGA A DOMICILIO

En Miami Dade: suscripción anual, $180.27; siete días, $116.84; jueves a

domingo, $80.12 sábado y domingo.

En Broward County: suscripción anual, $178.59; siete días, $115.75; jueves a

domingo, $79.37 sábado y domingo.

En Monroe County: suscripción anual, $181.95; siete días, $117.39; jueves a

domingo, $80.50 sábado y domingo.

Diario digital: $6.95 mensuales. Precio del periódico en máquinas; diario

$0.50, y domingos $1.00. en estanquillos, diario $0.50 y domingos $1.00 más

impuestos.

Cómo contactarnos

LOCALES

Dimitri Yimga, MBA, CPA

Ex alumno del MDC

Miembro de la Gerencia

DY CPA, LLC

Yo Soy

MDC

 www.mdcalumni.com

Únete a la Red de Ex Alumnos

los vientos que soplan

por el estéril capitolio estatal, da la impresión

que muchos legisladores

prefieren aplazar la oferta de Washington y dejar

el asunto sin resolver

p o r e l m o m e n t o , u n

error que costará sangre

y sufrimiento a muchos

enfermos. En el Senado,

sin embargo, hay una

propuesta que corre con

más suerte y ayer por la

tarde recibió un merecido impulso a nivel de

comité.

Se esfuma la esperanza como una estrella fug a z p e r o a ú n n o s e

pierde.

El panel presupuestario del Senado aprobó un

proyecto del republicano

Joe Negron, que ha recibido el apoyo de la comunidad empresarial y los

proveedores de servicios

de la salud, el cual plantea aceptar los fondos federales y dispensarlos

en forma de vales a las

personas pobres para adquirir pólizas de seguro

médico en el mercado

privado. Falta que la Cámara esté de acuerdo

mas ésta se opone, en general, al argumentar que

no puede depositarse la

confianza en el gobierno

federal porque no podrá

sostener su parte del

acuerdo a largo plazo.

Aparte del enérgico

planteamiento humano

fundamentado en el deseo de ver a estas personas sin recursos llevar

vidas más provechosas y

saludables, la ampliación del Medicaid tiene

sentido económico. No

solo porque el gobierno

cubriría el costo de la

ampliación durante los 3

primeros años y luego

disminuiría su aporte a

un 90 por ciento, sino

porque el dinero que pagamos en impuestos federales los floridanos

queremos verlo invertid o e n n u e s t r a s

comunidades.

La reforma sanitaria

contempla, paralelamente, una reducción en

el índice de crecimiento

del gasto del gobierno en

Medicare que impactará

a la Florida. Esperar miles de millones de dólares menos en fondos de

Medicare y rechazar miles de millones en fondos

de Medicaid suma una

ecuación fatal.

Al dictar la constitucionalidad de la ley de

salud, la Corte Suprema

de Justicia de Estados

Unidos concedió a los estados la posibilidad de

optar por quedar fuera

de la ampliación de Medicaid, así que tienen todo el derecho. No obstante, rehusarse a participar es irresponsable fiscalmente e insensible

ante las necesidades de

l o s r e s i d e n t e s d e l a

Florida.

La vida de los pobres

vale más que la ideología

política. 

Se esfuma la esperanza

SHOER VIENE DE LA PÁGINA 1B

evaluar a más de 21,000 instituciones educativas. Cada escuela fue calificada al

comparar los resultados

del año lectivo 2010-2011 en

Lectura y Matemáticas de

sus estudiantes con el resto de los alumnos en su estado, incluyendo aquellos

de estudiantes de minorías y de familas de bajos

recursos. Las escuelas que

se destacaron en estas categorías fueron evaluadas

en materia de preparación

para la universidad a través de los resultados en los

exámenes de Cursos Avanzados (Advance Placement) y de International

Baccalaureate.

Las escuelas y distritos

incluidos en la lista usualmente destacan sus logros,

aunque algunos critican la

metodología utilizada par a s e l e c c i o n a r a l a s

escuelas.

Entre las mejores 100 escuelas a nivel nacional de

Miami-Dade estuvieron

también Young Women’s

Preparatory Academy de

Miami en el puesto 25

( q u i n t a e n F l o r i d a ) y

MAST Academy de Virginia Key en el 96 (11 en el

estado).

Otras escuelas del sur de

la Florida que quedaron

entre las mejores 50 en el

estado son:

■ Coral Reef Senior

High (Miami-Dade), 13

■ New World School of

the Arts (Miami-Dade), 14

■ C y p re s s B ay H i g h

(Broward), 15

■ Pompano Beach High

(Broward), 17

■ Academy of Arts &

Minds (Miami-Dade), 18

■ Somerset High (Miami-Dade), 20

Evaluaron más de

21,000 escuelas

ESCUELAS VIENE DE LA PÁGINA 1B

señoras que jugaban bingo.

“Esas actividades son ilegales y

las autoridades están observando a

los que hacen eso. ¿Recuerdan lo que

pasó en Hialeah?”. 

Centeno se refería a los sonados casos de Deisy Pentón de Cabrera y Sergio “el Tío” Robaina, dos boleteros

que fueron arrestados el verano pasado en Hialeah por presunto fraude

electoral. El caso destapó un escándalo que manchó las campañas electorales del alcalde condal Carlos Giménez, la fiscal Katherine Fernández Rundle, tres representantes estatales y tres jueces condales. Los

arrestos fueron posibles gracias a

una nueva ordenanza condal que penaliza la recolección de boletas ausentes ajenas.

Las boletas ausentes, que serán

distribuidas a partir del miércoles,

son claves para ganar las elecciones

municipales de Sweetwater. Durante

los comicios del 2011, por ejemplo, el

72 por ciento de los votantes que participaron optaron por boletas ausentes. Para estas elecciones hay más de

8,600 votantes registrados en Sweetwater y casi 2,000 de ellos ordenaron

boletas para votar por correo. 

Centeno, de 54 años, dijo que los votantes deben saber que las actividades de los boleteros no son legales. 

La contienda entre Maroño y Centeno es la única elección municipal

en Sweetwater. Maroño, de 64 años,

es la madre del alcalde Manny Maroño, y fue nombrada a la Comisión el

año pasado tras la muerte de un

comisionado.

Isolina Maroño reconoce que tiene

influencia con los votantes ancianos

de Sweewater, pero dijo que esto se

debe a su trabajo como voluntaria en

la comunidad desde hace más de tres

décadas. Por casi 20 años Isolina ha

llevado personalmente bolsas de alimentos donadas por organizaciones

sin fines de lucro a las viviendas para personas mayores.

“A mí me parece que la señora

[Centeno] habla claramente y dice algunas cosas que son ciertas”, declaró

Blanca Garrido en el comedor. “Pero

yo voy a votar por Isolina porque la

conozco hace 30 años, cuando Manny

era apenas un niño. Son como una familia para nosotros”. 

Pero Centeno, quien ha vivido desde el 1985 en el área cercana al Dolphin Mall que fue anexada a Sweetwater en el 2010, sugirió que los políticos de esa municipalidad han creado un sistema de dádivas a cambio

del apoyo de los votantes. Según ella,

las personas tienen miedo de perder

sus beneficios. 

“El acceso al comedor publico, las

jabas de comida, el transporte gratis,

todo eso es fruto de los impuestos que

pagamos”, repitió Centeno a los ancianos. “Ustedes pueden votar por

quien consideren que es la mejor opción para la Ciudad, y no perderán

sus beneficios por eso”. 

Antes de que Centeno entrará

acompañada de un mariachi, el colombiano Misael Andrade, de 89

años, se le acercó afuera del comedor

a decirle que votaría por ella sin miedo. 

“Yo soy ciudadano americano y

puedo votar por quien me dé la gana”, vociferó Andrade. 

En el comedor publico sobre la 4

calle del suroeste, algunos de los

asistentes comentaron que el mensaje de la candidata de origen nicaragüense les pareció agresivo. 

“Yo quiero que un candidato me diga lo que va a hacer por mí, no que

venga a hablarme mal sobre mi Ciudad”, dijo Irene Proenza, de 77 años y

quien ha vivido en Sweetwater desde

1975. “Ella [Centeno] no está muy enterada de lo que era Sweetwater antes y lo que ha llegado a ser después

de los Maroño”.

La reportera Melissa Sanchez contribuyó con este artículo.

Distribuyen hoy las boletas

VOTO VIENE DE LA PÁGINA 1B Deborah Centeno

alude al caso de

boleteros de Hialeah

oficiales de Doral intervinieron el townhouse 316 del

6141 NW 115 Place, donde

operaba el laboratorio

clandestino.

María Tortolero, otra de

las líderes del grupo vecinal de The Gates, enfatizó

que el laboratorio funcionaba apenas a 100 metros

de la escuela primaria Eugenia B. Thomas.

“Hasta ahora no puedo

creer que alguien haya decidido dedicarse al cultivo

de drogas tan cerca de una

escuela primaria”, criticó

Tortolero. “Realmente estamos muy preocupados

por lo que ha sucedido

aquí”.

La policía encontró en el

interior del townhouse 40

macetas de marihuana valoradas en el mercado clandestino local en al menos

$125,000. Al momento de la

intervención no se encontró ningún ocupante y el

c a s o s i g u e b a j o

investigación.

Cuatro días después del

exitoso allanamiento, autoridades municipales y

policiales sostuvieron una

reunión con numerosos residentes de ese reparto, entre ellos los representantes

de la Asociación de Vecinos. Durante ese encuentro, el agente Feliciano

planteó la idea de que los

p r o p i o s v e c i n o s s e

organizaran.

La propuesta de las autoridades fue bien recibida,

destacó Aura Ordóñez,

otra de las dirigentes vecinales y quien desde hace

una década reside en ese

reparto.

“La única manera de evitar que algo así vuelva a repetirse es que los vecinos

estemos unidos y vigilantes”, manifestó Ordóñez.

“Del apoyo que le podamos

brindar a las autoridades

depende que nuestra com u n i d a d s i g a s i e n d o

segura”.

La nueva organización

fue elogiada por Dominique Barba, una de las líderes de la junta de vigilancia

del vecino y exclusivo reparto Doral Isles.

“Cada vez más personas

estamos conociéndonos

para ayudar a las autoridades y a nuestra propia comunidad”, destacó Barba.

“Nuestra función se concentra específicamente en

informar a la policía sobre

cualquier cosa que nos

pueda preocupar. Por eso

nuestras ar mas son los

teléfonos”.

Barba dijo que Doral Isles Neighborhood Watch

actualmente cuenta con

cerca de 300 miembros. El

grupo fue creado en noviembre del año pasado

luego de una serie de robos

en ese complejo habitacional, el cual está compuesto

por 11 repartos y donde habitan un total de casi 5,000

personas. 

Barba precisó que cada

reparto es liderado por al

menos dos vecinos, a quienes denominan capitanes.

A d e m á s, c r e a r o n u n a

cuenta en Facebook, donde

los vecinos interactúan de

manera constante.

“Esto nos está permitiendo participar de forma

activa en lo que ocurre en

nuestra comunidad”, dijo

Barba. “Por eso la policía

de Doral nos ha puesto como ejemplo de la organización vecinal en nuestra

ciudad”.

El 5 de marzo, luego de

una denuncia vecinal, la

policía allanó en Doral Isles una vivienda dedicada

a la comercialización de

drogas. En el operativo fuer o n a r r e s t a d a s c i n c o

personas.

Durante el 2012, la policía ha registrado en Doral

Isles 55 incidentes: 15 robos

de viviendas, 26 robos de

pertenencias en vehículos,

3 robos de autos, 10 casos

de vandalismo a vehículos

y un caso de drogas.

Delitos causan seria preocupación

DORAL VIENE DE LA PÁGINA 1B

EL OFICIAL de la policía de Doral, Noel Feliciano,

conversa con Ana Luna y Claudia Chair (de

espaldas) vecinas del reparto The Gates.

ROBERTO KOLTUN/El Nuevo Herald
All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC (AAF) y la Administración Federal de Ferrocarriles (FRA, por sus siglas en inglés) 

anuncian una serie de Reuniones Públicas/Sesiones de Puertas Abiertas acerca de la Declaración del Impacto 

Ambiental (EIS, por sus siglas en inglés) que se está elaborando para evaluar los posibles impactos ambientales y 

otros impactos relacionados a la construcción y operación del servicio ferroviario interurbano de pasajeros 

propuesto por AAF (Proyecto). El sistema ferroviario interurbano de 235 millas de largo se extendería entre 

Orlando y Miami, Florida, con paradas intermediarias en Fort Lauderdale y West Palm Beach, Florida. 

El propósito de la EIS es proporcionar a la FRA y a las agencias participantes, tanto como al público en general, toda 

la información pertinente para la evaluación de las alternativas de acuerdo al propósito y la necesidad del 

Proyecto; evaluar los posibles impactos ambientales; e identificar las posibles medidas de prevención/mitigación 

relacionadas con las alternativas. 

Se invita al público en general, a los organismos gubernamentales, y otras partes interesadas, a proporcionar 

comentarios acerca del alcance de la EIS, ya sea verbalmente o por escrito, en las siguientes reuniones. 

Miércoles, 1 de mayo del 2013 

De 3:30 a 7 p.m. 

Renaissance Orlando Airport Hotel – Milan Ballroom 

5445 Forbes Place 

Orlando, FL 32812 

Lunes, 6 de mayo del 2013 

De 3:30 a 7 p.m. 

Culmer Center – Multipurpose Room 

1600 NW 3rd Avenue 

Miami, FL 33136 

Martes, 7 de mayo del 2013 

Gaines Park Community Center – Addie Greene Hall East 

1505 N. Australian Avenue 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

Jueves, 9 de mayo del 2013 

De 3:30 a 7 p.m. 

Havert L. Fenn Center – Salón 5 

2000 Virginia Avenue 

Fort Pierce, FL 34982 

La información que se presentará en cada reunión será idéntica. Le animamos a participar y a proporcionar sus 

comentarios. El público tendrá la oportunidad de llegar en cualquier momento entre las 3:30 p.m. y las 7 p.m. Los 

comentarios acerca del alcance de la EIS también pueden ser enviados a: Catherine Dobbs, Analista del Sector del 

Transporte, Departamento de Normas y Desarrollo, Administración Federal de Ferrocarriles, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590, o por correo electrónico a: catherine.dobbs@dot.gov. 

Se solicita la participación del público sin distinción de raza, color, origen nacional, edad, sexo, religión, 

discapacidad o estado familiar. Las personas que requieran asistencia especial según la Ley de 1990 para 

Americanos con Impedimentos, o las personas que requieran servicio de traducción (gratuito), deberán 

comunicarse al menos siete días antes de la audiencia pública, con Ali Soule al 305-520-2105 o enviando un correo 

electrónico a eis@allaboardflorida.com. 

Para más información, por favor visite la página Web, www.AllAboardFlorida.com, o comuníquese con Ali Soule al 

305-520-2105. 
Biwo “All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC (AAF)” ak Administrasyon Federal sou kesyon Tren (Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA)) ap anonse yon seri reyinyon piblik yo pral fè pou diskite preparasyon konsènan yon 

deklarasyon sou ki efè pwojè transpò sa a kapab fè sou anviwònman an ak lòt kalite efè konstriksyon an ka fè epi ki 

efè tou sa kab fè lè tren yo kòmanse mache sot nan yon vil al nan yon lòt, ki efè yo kab fè sou tout bagay. Sistèm 

tren sa a AAF pwopoze a pral pase sou 378 kilomèt epi l ap konekte Òlanndo ak Miyami nan Eta Florid epi tren an 

ap fè eskal nan West Palm Beach ak Fort Lauderdale. Rezon ki fè y ap prepare dosye konsènan efè pwojè a pral fè 

sou anviwònman an se pou yo kapab bay Administrasyon federal ki okipe afè tren an, lòt ajans k ap kolabore yo, ak 

sa k ap pran pa nan pwojè a, ak popilasyon an tout enfòmasyon konsènan pwojè a, kon sa y ap kapab analize lòt 

chwa k ap bon pou pwojè a ak sa pwojè a bezwen; epi tou y ap kab evalye ki efè altènatif yo pwopoze yo kab fè sou 

anviwònman an epi y ap kapab wè kouman pou yo evite efè sa yo epi pran desizyon sou yo. 

Yo envite popilasyon an, ajans gouvènman, ak tout lòt moun ki enterese, vin pataje lide yo sou deklarasyon 

konsènan efè pwojè transpò sa a pral fè sou anviwònman an. Tout moun kab swa vin nan reyinyon yo pou di sa yo 

panse oubyen ekri lide yo genyen epi remèt yo nan reyinyon yo. 

Mèkredi premye me, 2013 

3:30 pou 7 p.m. 

Renaissance Orlando Airport Hotel – Milan Ballroom 

5445 Forbes Place 

Orlando, FL 32812 

Lendi 6 me, 2013 

3:30 pou 7 p.m. 

Culmer Center – Multipurpose Room 

1600 NW 3rd Ave. 

Miami, FL 33136 

Madi 7 me, 2013 

3:30 pou 7 p.m. 

Gaines Park Community Center – Addie Greene Hall East 

1505 N. Australian Ave. 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

Jedi 9 me, 2013 

3:30 pou 7 p.m. 

Havert L. Fenn Center – Room 5 

2000 Virginia Ave. 

Fort Pierce, FL 34982 

Nan chak rankont sa yo y ap bay menm enfòmasyon yo. Tanpri vin di nou sa ou panse. Nou envite tout moun pase 

nan reyinyon sa yo nenpòt lè pandan y ap fèt. Tout moun kapab fè kòmantè sou preparasyon dosye konsènan efè 

pwojè a swa pa lapòs swa pa imel jiska 15 me, 2003. Voye yo bay Catherine Dobbs, Analis nan afè Biznis Transpò 

(Transportation Industry Analyst), nan biwo sa a “Office of Railroad Policy and Development, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590”, oubyen nan imel sa a 

catherine.dobbs@dot.gov. 

Nou mande patisipasyon popilasyon an san patipri pou kesyon ras, koulè po, peyi kote yon moun fèt, laj yon moun, 

si l se fi oswa gason, relijyon li, si l andikape oubyen si l marye oswa li pa marye. Dapre Lwa Ameriken pou moun ki 

andikape, moun ki bezwen aranjman espesyal pou yo vin nan reyinyon sa a oubyen moun ki bezwen sèvis 

tradiksyon (gratis) dwe kontakte Ali Soule nan 305-520-2105 oubyen nan imel eis@allaboardflorida.com omwen 7 

jou anvan reyinyon an. 

Si w bezwen plis ransèyman, al sou sit sa a: www.AllAboardFlorida.com oubyen kontakte Ali Soule nan 305-520-

2105. 
Reuniones públicas para

examinar la propuesta de AAF

del servicio de tren interurbano

Orlando a Miami
Por qué realizar estas reuniones?

 La Administración Federal de Trenes (FRA) agradece

los comentarios y sugerencias para apoyar e

identificar los aspectos que potencial y

razonablemente, puedan se considerados a medida

que el proyecto avance.

Esta reunión forma parte de la Declaración de

Impacto Ambiental (EIS) que requiere y describe el

Acta Nacional de Regulación Ambiental de 1969

(NEPA).

2

 La Administración Federal de Trenes (FRA) agradece

los comentarios y sugerencias para apoyar e

identificar los aspectos que potencial y

razonablemente, puedan se considerados a medida

que el proyecto avance.

Esta reunión forma parte de la Declaración de

Impacto Ambiental (EIS) que requiere y describe el

Acta Nacional de Regulación Ambiental de 1969

(NEPA).
Qué formato tendrá está reunión?

Recepción abierta al público. Por invitación a personas para que asistan y

permanezcan, si es conveniente. Intérpretes de español disponibles. Preguntas y comentarios, se

agradecen.

3

Recepción abierta al público. Por invitación a personas para que asistan y

permanezcan, si es conveniente. Intérpretes de español disponibles. Preguntas y comentarios, se

agradecen.
AAF es una de las más grandes y antiguas

compañías en el área de la Florida, en transporte,

infraestructura y edificación comercial, subsidiaria y

propiedad de Florida East Coast Industries, Inc.

AAF está proponiendo restaurar el servicio de trenes

en la Florida mediante un sistema de operación y

mantenimiento privados.

El proyecto conectará Miami y Orlando con

estaciones intermedias en West Palm Beach y Fort

Lauderdale.

Qué significa All Aboard Florida?

4

AAF es una de las más grandes y antiguas

compañías en el área de la Florida, en transporte,

infraestructura y edificación comercial, subsidiaria y

propiedad de Florida East Coast Industries, Inc.

AAF está proponiendo restaurar el servicio de trenes

en la Florida mediante un sistema de operación y

mantenimiento privados.

El proyecto conectará Miami y Orlando con

estaciones intermedias en West Palm Beach y Fort

Lauderdale.
Qué significa All Aboard Florida?

El servicio de trenes funcionará cada hora en cada

dirección, con un tiempo de viaje total de 3 horas

aproximadamente.  Los trenes viajarán

Hasta 79 mph entre Miami and West Palm Beach.

Hasta 110 mph entre West Palm Beach and Cocoa

Hasta 125 mph entre Cocoa and Orlando

5

El servicio de trenes funcionará cada hora en cada

dirección, con un tiempo de viaje total de 3 horas

aproximadamente.  Los trenes viajarán

Hasta 79 mph entre Miami and West Palm Beach.

Hasta 110 mph entre West Palm Beach and Cocoa

Hasta 125 mph entre Cocoa and Orlando
Por qué un servicio de tren de

pasajeros interurbano?  La población de la Florida ha

aumentado y se espera que crezca.  La red de transporte estatal está

congestionada.  Opciones de viaje eficientes y seguras

son necesarias para que haya menos

autos en las carreteras.  Los trenes son una alternativa de viaje

confiable y eficiente que crea trabajos

y contribuye al desarrollo económico,

reduciendo la dependencia de los

Estados Unidos, de energías no

renovables. 6  La población de la Florida ha

aumentado y se espera que crezca.  La red de transporte estatal está

congestionada.  Opciones de viaje eficientes y seguras

son necesarias para que haya menos

autos en las carreteras.  Los trenes son una alternativa de viaje

confiable y eficiente que crea trabajos

y contribuye al desarrollo económico,

reduciendo la dependencia de los

Estados Unidos, de energías no

renovables.
Qué significa el proceso NEPA?

Es un proceso de toma de decisiones que requiere

que las agencias federales consideren el impacto de

las acciones sobre el medioambiente humano y

natural y lo revelen en un documento público.

 Cerca de 30 categorías se han evaluado, incluyendo

impactos potenciales al medioambiente económico y

social, los recursos culturales, la justicia ambiental, el

ruido y la vibración, la calidad del aire y el agua y la

protección de las especies y sus habitats esenciales.

7

Es un proceso de toma de decisiones que requiere

que las agencias federales consideren el impacto de

las acciones sobre el medioambiente humano y

natural y lo revelen en un documento público.

 Cerca de 30 categorías se han evaluado, incluyendo

impactos potenciales al medioambiente económico y

social, los recursos culturales, la justicia ambiental, el

ruido y la vibración, la calidad del aire y el agua y la

protección de las especies y sus habitats esenciales.
Cuáles son los aspectos relevantes

a considerar en el proceso NEPA?

Mediante este proceso, un EIS debe ser

desarrollado y hecho público para:

Describir el proceso y la necesidad del proyecto.

Revisar una variedad de alternativas razonables.

Identificar la alternativa preferida para el proyecto.

Considerar los impactos de esa alternativa.

8

Mediante este proceso, un EIS debe ser

desarrollado y hecho público para:

Describir el proceso y la necesidad del proyecto.

Revisar una variedad de alternativas razonables.

Identificar la alternativa preferida para el proyecto.

Considerar los impactos de esa alternativa.
Cuáles son las oportunidades para

participar?

Ud. está

aquí

• Defina una razonable

variedad de

allternativas

• Identifique

preocupaciones

ambientales

• Desarrolle el propósito

y la necesidad del

proyecto

• Considere asuntos

consultados al público

y a agencias afectadas

• Mejore alternativas

• Defina temas y evalúe

impactos

• Recomiende una

alternativa preferida

• Prepare y publique el

bosquejo de un EIS

para su revisión

pública

• Audiencia pública

• Incorpore comentarios

y revise un bosquejo

EIS

• Finalice un EIS

9

Consulta

pública

Bosquejo

de un EIS

Constancia

de la

decisión

Mayo 2013 Septiembre 2013 Abril 2014

• Defina una razonable

variedad de

allternativas

• Identifique

preocupaciones

ambientales

• Desarrolle el propósito

y la necesidad del

proyecto

• Considere asuntos

consultados al público

y a agencias afectadas

• Mejore alternativas

• Defina temas y evalúe

impactos

• Recomiende una

alternativa preferida

• Prepare y publique el

bosquejo de un EIS

para su revisión

pública

• Audiencia pública

• Incorpore comentarios

y revise un bosquejo

EIS

• Finalice un EIS
Cuáles son las metas del proceso de

consulta pública?

Identificar y conocer

accionistas interesados

Escuchar a los probables

vecinos

 Reunir información/datos para

su evaluación

 Considerar asuntos e intereses

 Definir el propósito y la

necesidad del proyecto

 Desarrollar alternativas para

evaluar más adelante

10

Identificar y conocer

accionistas interesados

Escuchar a los probables

vecinos

 Reunir información/datos para

su evaluación

 Considerar asuntos e intereses

 Definir el propósito y la

necesidad del proyecto

 Desarrollar alternativas para

evaluar más adelante
Temas a considerar

Necesitamos este

sistema de

transporte?

Qué rutas

alternativas

deberían

evaluarse?

Sus

preocupaciones?

Díganos lo

que piensa

11

Qué rutas

alternativas

deberían

evaluarse?

Su visión?

Sus

preocupaciones?

Díganos lo

que piensa
Temas que debe saber

La AAF planea completar el proyecto usando un

corredor de vías en dirección Norte-Sur, de 195

millas y un corredor de transporte Este-Oeste de

40 millas, que ya existen.

El proceso NEPA para el servicio de tren de

pasajeros interurbano, de 66 millas de extensión,

entre Miami y West Palm Beach ha sido

finalizado y el FRA determinó en Enero del 2013,

que ningún impacto significativo se había

producido.

12

La AAF planea completar el proyecto usando un

corredor de vías en dirección Norte-Sur, de 195

millas y un corredor de transporte Este-Oeste de

40 millas, que ya existen.

El proceso NEPA para el servicio de tren de

pasajeros interurbano, de 66 millas de extensión,

entre Miami y West Palm Beach ha sido

finalizado y el FRA determinó en Enero del 2013,

que ningún impacto significativo se había

producido.
Temas que debe saber

AAF está negociando con el Departamento de

transporte de la Florida y la autoridad de las

autopistas del condado de Orange, en Orlando,

para rentar parte del derecho de paso de la ruta

estatal 528 a fin de completar el corredor Este- Oeste del proyecto.

AAF está negociando con la autoridad de

aviación del Gran Orlando para lograr una vía de

acceso al aeropuerto internacional de Orlando.

AAF rentará una estación para pasajeros y una

planta de mantenimiento de vehículos.

13

AAF está negociando con el Departamento de

transporte de la Florida y la autoridad de las

autopistas del condado de Orange, en Orlando,

para rentar parte del derecho de paso de la ruta

estatal 528 a fin de completar el corredor Este- Oeste del proyecto.

AAF está negociando con la autoridad de

aviación del Gran Orlando para lograr una vía de

acceso al aeropuerto internacional de Orlando.

AAF rentará una estación para pasajeros y una

planta de mantenimiento de vehículos.
Alternativas a considerar

Orlando Ejemplo

de una

alineación

alternativa Con su ayuda

durante el proceso,

pueden

desarrollarse y

evaluarse

alternativas.

14

Miami

Con su ayuda

durante el proceso,

pueden

desarrollarse y

evaluarse

alternativas.
Por favor, comparta lo que piensa

En una carta

Completando y enviando

su comentario a esta

reunión

Enviando su comentario

por correo hasta el día

15 de Mayo del 2013

15

En una carta

Completando y enviando

su comentario a esta

reunión

Enviando su comentario

por correo hasta el día

15 de Mayo del 2013
Por favor, infórmese

Inscríbase en una

lista de direcciones

electrónicas o emails

Visite el website de

AAF y la página de

Facebook

Siga AAF en Twitter

Asista a las reuniones

futuras que se

publiciten en los

diarios locales

www.allaboardflorida.com

16

Inscríbase en una

lista de direcciones

electrónicas o emails

Visite el website de

AAF y la página de

Facebook

Siga AAF en Twitter

Asista a las reuniones

futuras que se

publiciten en los

diarios locales
Cómo contactar la FRA?

Comentarios escritos sobre el contenido del EIS deben

ser enviados por correo o por e-mail hasta el día 15 de

Mayo del 2013 a:

Catherine Dobbs

Transportation Industry Analyst

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

catherine.dobbs@dot.gov

17

Comentarios escritos sobre el contenido del EIS deben

ser enviados por correo o por e-mail hasta el día 15 de

Mayo del 2013 a:

Catherine Dobbs

Transportation Industry Analyst

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

catherine.dobbs@dot.gov
Cómo contactar AAF?

Para información, pueden contactar a:

Ali Soule

Public Affairs Manager

All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC

2855 Le Jeune Road | 4th Floor

Coral Gables, FL 33134

eis@allaboardflorida.com

www.allaboardflorida.com

18

Para información, pueden contactar a:

Ali Soule

Public Affairs Manager

All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC

2855 Le Jeune Road | 4th Floor

Coral Gables, FL 33134

eis@allaboardflorida.com

www.allaboardflorida.com
GRACIAS POR SU

PARTICIPACIÓN

19
Appendix B

Public Involvement and Outreach Materials
Comments
Miami Meeting 

 




























































































































Fort Lauderdale Meeting 

 








































West Palm Beach Meeting 

 












































































































































Meeting Materials
This exciting transportation project will give Florida 

residents and visitors a new and reliable 

transportation option to connect Central and 

South Florida, two of the state’s most visited 

and populated regions. 

 

These stations will become destinations and revitalize the 

surrounding areas. By planning connections to existing 

and future transportation systems and offering additional 

mobility options -- such as rental cars and local transit -- 

passengers will be able to access the central business 

districts, area landmarks and attractions with ease. 

The project is being developed by All Aboard 

Florida - Operations LLC, a company that traces its roots 

to Henry Flagler. More than a century ago, Flagler transformed 

Florida when he developed his railroad and catalyzed the development 

of major cities along the east coast. 

Stations are planned in the downtowns of Miami, 

 Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, and at the 

 new intermodal facility at Orlando International Airport.

ORLANDO

WEST PALM BEACH

FT. LAUDERDALE

MIAMI

AMERICA’S ONLY PRIVATELY 

OWNED, OPERATED AND 

MAINTAINED INTERCITY 

PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM 

All Aboard Florida will connect Florida’s key 

cities in a new way to spark social and economic 

opportunities.

It’s time for another transfor mative change. 
Protecting Florida’s natural habitat is vital. In 

addition to removing millions of cars from the 

roads each year, the system will operate within 

a rail corridor that has existed for more than a 

century.

Since the project was 

announced in 2012, the 

project team has moved 

at an accelerated pace 

to deliver this new 

passenger rail system. 

An investment grade 

ridership study and a 

peer review were

finalized, and the 

company hired key 

executives to deliver the 

project. 2013 is an 

important year for the 

company as it focuses on 

securing environmental permits, 

finalizing the route alignment and 

completing the station design process. 

All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC (AAF) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Florida East Coast Industries, Inc.

Find out more at www.AllAboardFlorida.com or email us at info@allaboardflorida.com.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. 

The service will use clean-diesel 

trains and leverage existing 

transportation corridors, which 

will benefit the environment and 

protect Florida’s natural resources.

All Aboard Florida will:

■

■

■

■

All Aboard Florida will connect 

travelers to what matters.

SERVICE OFFERINGS WILL INCLUDE

Hourly 

scheduled

service

Premium 

amenities, 

including Wi-Fi and 

food & beverage 

service

Hour travel 

time between 

Miami and 

Orlando

More than 55 million people visited Central

Florida and Miami International Airport

served more than 39 million passengers

Almost 8 million people boarded a 

cruise from PortMiami or Port 

Everglades, making them 

the two largest cruise 

ship ports in the world

The Orange County 

Convention Center 

hosted 250 events 

that were attended 

b y mor e t h a n 

1.4 million people

■

■

■

Create tens of thousands of jobs, from 

rail construction to operations to 

transit-oriented development opportunities

Revitalize local economies

Provide economic development along 

the route, resulting in a new revenue for 

Florida’s cities and counties

Increase tourism opportunities 

All Aboard Florida 

will serve the needs 

of all passengers. The 

addressable market is 

more than 50 million 

customers. The majority 

travel in groups, whether it’s 

leisure, business or families. 

Almost 30 percent of the market is 

business travelers. 

From beautiful beaches to thrilling theme 

parks to enticing shopping destinations, South 

and Central Florida have it all. In 2012, 
Comment Form 

The All Aboard Florida (AAF) project is proposing a privately funded, 

operated and maintained 235-mile intercity passenger rail project that 

will connect Miami and Orlando with intermediate stations in Fort 

Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. Please provide your feedback to 

help us shape the vision for this very important project. 

1. Do you have any comments on the purpose of the AAF project described at today’s meeting? 

 Yes No 

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Do you have any comments on the need for the project as presented at the meeting? Yes No 

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________ 

3. Please list any issues or challenges in the study area about which the team should be aware going forward. 

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________ 

4. What concerns do you think should be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement? 

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Please send your comments by May 15, 2013 to: 

Catherine Dobbs 

Transportation Analyst 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C., 20590 

OR 

Catherine.Dobbs@dot.gov 
Mailing List and Survey 

The All Aboard Florida (AAF) project is proposing a privately funded, 

operated and maintained 235-mile intercity passenger rail project that will 

connect Miami and Orlando with intermediate stations in Fort Lauderdale 

and West Palm Beach. Please answer the following questions to help us 

communicate with you and plan future meetings and outreach events. 

Name ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Address ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

City, State, Zip ______________________________________________________________________________ 

Email______________________________________________________________________________________ 

Which open house event did you attend? 

 May 1, 2013 May 6, 2013 May 7, 2013 May 9, 2013 

Was the time and location of the meeting convenient for you? Yes No 

Please list any suggestions for other times or locations: ________________________________________ 

 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 

How did you hear about the meeting? 

 Email 

 Facebook 

 Flier 

 AAF Website 

 Info/Business Card 

 Newspaper 

 Word of Mouth 

 Twitter 

 Other: ________________ 

How would you like to receive updates on the project? 

 Email 

 Updates online (AAF website, Facebook, Twitter) 

 Contact my civic organization to make a presentation (provide contact info below): 

Please list any stakeholders, organizations or groups with which we should coordinate going forward. 

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________ 

Do you support the AAF project? Please comment below. Yes No 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

Please provide any other comments about your vision for AAF. 

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS 

PROPOSED INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE Orlando to Miami 
Why Conduct these Meetings? 

 The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) welcomes comments 

and input, both in support as well as to identify any potential issues that can be reasonably addressed as the project advances.

 This meeting is part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

requirements as described in the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

Open-house format Visitors invited to arrive and stay 

as convenient 

Spanish interpreters available Questions and comments welcomed 

What is the Format of this Scoping 
What is All Aboard Florida? 

 AAF (All Aboard Florida) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Florida 

East Coast Industries, Inc. – one of Florida's oldest and largest transportation, infrastructure and commercial real estate companies. 

 AAF is proposing to restore passenger rail service in Florida 

through a privately owned, operated and maintained system. 

 The project will connect Miami and Orlando with intermediate 

stations in West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale. 

 Train service is planned to run hourly in 

a total travel time of approximately three 

Trains will travel Up to 79 mph between Miami and WeUp to 110 mph between West Palm BUp to 125 mph between Cocoa and O
 Florida has seen major population growth, 

which is expected to increase. 

 The State’s existing transportation network is congested. Efficient and safe travel options are needed.  Rail presents an efficient and reliable travel alternative that 

will create jobs, support economic development and reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and America’s dependence on fossil fuels. 

Why Intercity Passenger Rail? 
What is the NEPA Process? 

 NEPA is a decision-making process that requires federal agencies 

to consider the impacts of actions on the human and natural environment and to disclose such impacts in a public document.

 Over 30 categories are evaluated, including the potential impacts 

to Economic and Social Environments, Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice, Noise and Vibration, Air and Water Quality and Protected Species and Essential Habitats. 

 Through this process, an EIS will be de

Describe the purpose and need for thReview a reasonable range of alternaIdentify a preferred alternative for the Address the impacts of the preferred 

What Major Issues will be Addresse
What are the Opportunities for Involvement? 

 Identify and meet interested stakeholde Listen to project neighbors  Gather information/data to be evaluated Consider issues and concerns  Define the project’s purpose and need Develop alternatives for further evaluati

What are the Goals of this Public Sc

Public 

Scoping Draft EIS 

Record 

of 

Decision 

You are here 

May 2013 September 2013 April 2014 

• Define reasonable 

range of alternatives 

• Identify 

environmental concerns 

• Develop the project’s 

purpose and need 

• Address scoping issues 

from the public and affected agencies 

• Refine alternatives • Define issues and 

evaluate impacts 

• Recommend a 

Preferred Alternative 

• Prepare and publish draft 

EIS for public review 

• Public Hearing • Incorporate comments 

and revise Draft EIS 

• Finalize EIS 
Things to Consider 

 AAF plans to complete the project withi

corridor for 195 miles and within an exiscorridor for 40 miles.

 The NEPA process for the 66-mile inter

between Miami and West Palm Beach hFinding of No Significant Impact was issthe FRA. 

Do we 

need this 

transportation 

system? 

What route 

alternatives 

should be 

evaluated? 

Your Vision? 

Your 

Concerns? 

Give us your 

thoughts 

Things to Know 
Things to Know 

 AAF is in negotiations with Florida Department of 

Transportation and Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority to lease part of the SR 528 right-of-way to complete the east-west corridor of the project. 

 AAF is in negotiations with the Greater Orlando Aviation 

Authority (GOAA) to obtain a rail easement to access the Orlando International Airport. AAF will also enter into a lease with GOAA for a passenger rail station and vehicle maintenance facility. 

Witwill dur

Alternative to Consider 
 In a letter 

 By completing and submitting comment cards at this meeting  By completing and postmarking comment cards by May 15, 2013Please Share Your Thoughts 
 Sign-in list for mailings or emails 

 Check the AAF website and Facebook page  Follow AAF on Twitter Attend future meetings as advertised in your local papers Please Stay Informed 

www.allaboardflorida.com 
FRA Contact Information 

Written comments on the scope of the EIS may be postmarked or emailed on or before May 15, 2013 to: Catherine Dobbs Transportation Industry Analyst Office of Railroad Policy and Development Federal Railroad Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 catherine.dobbs@dot.gov 

For further information contact:Ali Soule 

Public Affairs Manager All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC 2855 LeJeune Road 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 eis@allaboardflorida.com www.allaboardflorida.com AAF Contact Information 
Thank You for Your Participation 
>ZSOaSeObQVbVSaZWRS

aV]eO\RdWaWbO\g

W\T]`[ObW]\abObW]\b]OaY

_cSabW]\a

1][[S\bQO`RaO`SZ]QObSRObbVS

aWU\W\bOPZSO\RbVSRWa^ZOgO`SO

>ZSOaSTWZZ]\S]cbb]ROg]`bOYSWb

V][Sb]TWZZ]cbZObS`

4]`[]`SW\T]`[ObW]\OP]cbbVWa

^`]XSQbdWaWb]c`eSPaWbS(

eeeOZZOP]O`RTZ]`WROQ][

Welcome!

Thank you for your participation
For more information about this

project, visit our website:

www.allaboardflorida.com

What is the format of

this scoping meeting?

Open house format

Visitors invited to arrive and stay 

as convenient

Spanish interpreters are available

Questions and comments welcomed
<Se^OaaS\US``OWZabObW]\aW\;WO[W

4]`b:OcRS`ROZSO\RESab>OZ[0SOQV

<Seb`OQYc^U`ORSaW\O\SfWabW\U`OWZQ]``WR]`

PSbeSS\;WO[WO\RESab>OZ[0SOQV

4]`[]`SW\T]`[ObW]\OP]cbbVWa

^`]XSQbdWaWb]c`eSPaWbS(

eeeOZZOP]O`RTZ]`WROQ][

7\bS`QWbg^OaaS\US``OWZWa^O`b

]TbVSAbObS ̧aB`O\a^]`bObW]\>ZO\

>OaaS\US``OWZWaac^^]`bSRPg[O\g]T

bVSZ]QOZU]dS`\[S\bab`O\a^]`bObW]\

^ZO\\W\U]`UO\WhObW]\aO\R`SUW]\OZ

^ZO\\W\UQ]c\QWZaW\A]cbVSOabO\R

1S\b`OZ4Z]`WRO

/^OaaS\US``OWZabObW]\ObbVS=`ZO\R]

7\bS`\ObW]\OZ/W`^]`bWa^O`b]TWba

[OabS`^ZO\

7\bS`QW W bg ^OaaS\US``OWZ Wa^O`b

TV A W Z

This project

complements state and 

local adopted plans

[OabS` ^ZO\

As a result of the

Environmental Assessment/

FONSI issued by the FRA in

January 2013, All Aboard

<Se^OaaS\US``OWZabObW]\aW\;WO[W

4]`b:OcRS`ROZSO\RESab>OZ[0SOQV

<Seb`OQYc^U`ORSaW\O\SfWabW\U`OWZQ]``WR]`

PSbeSS\;WO[WO\RESab>OZ[0SOQV

Florida is planning
For more information about this

project, visit our website:

www.allaboardflorida.com

0SaV]`bS`TOabS`O\RZWUVbS`bVO\bVS

T`SWUVbb`OW\abVObQc``S\bZg]^S`ObSW\bVS

 SfWabW\U`OWZ corridor

1ZSO`bVSW\bS`aSQbW]\aW\ZSaabVO\

 a minute

AbO`b]^S`ObW\UW\bVS[]`\W\UO\R

S\RW\bVSSdS\W\U

For more information about this

project, visit our website:

www.allaboardflorida.com

The National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental 

Impact Statement Process

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9

10

Publish

Notice of

Intent

4/15/13

Solicit public

and agency

input during

scoping

meeting/

comment 

period

Develop

Purpose and

Need 

and

alternatives

Study

alternatives

and potential

impacts

Prepare

Draft EIS

Publish Draft

EIS: Solicit

comments 

during

comment

period

Address 

comments, 

identify 

Preferred 

Alternative and 

prepare Final 

EIS

Publish 

notice of

availability

for Final EIS

Address 

comments; 

finalize

mitigation 

measures

Prepare

and

publish ROD

We are here
This project will proceed in full compliance 

with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act 

(U.S.C. 200d-1) and related regulations.

What does Title VI 

mean to you?

Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race,

color or national origin. This ensures that no one

will be excluded from participation in, be denied 

the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination

under this project. We encourage everyone’s

comments and participation.

For more information about this

project, visit our website:

www.allaboardflorida.com
For more information about this

project, visit our website:

www.allaboardflorida.com

Thank you

for your interest

Did you submit a

comment?

Did you sign up to

be on our mailing list?

Please share your ideas and thoughts for

the project scoping phase on or before

May 15, 2013, by submitting them to

catherine.dobbs@dot.gov.

Please speak with a project team member to

receive more information on AAF.
Stakeholder Coordination



























3RVWHGRQ7XH1RY

)(&$OO$ERDUG)ORULGDWRRIIHUH[FLWLQJWUDLQVHUYLFH

IURP0LDPLWR2UODQGR

7KH0LDPL+HUDOG(GLWRULDO

+HUDOG(G#0LDPL+HUDOGFRP

$VWKH3RUW0LDPLWXQQHOJHWVEXLOWWRWDNHWUXFNVRII%LVFD\QH%RXOHYDUGDQGUDLOOLQHVJHW

VSLIIHGXSWREULQJSRUWFDUJRWRWKH+LDOHDKDUHDIRUGLVWULEXWLRQFHQWHUVQRUWKWKHUH¶VDQ

H[FLWLQJQHZSDVVHQJHUUDLOSURMHFWLQWKHZRUNVWKDWZLOODGGWRGRZQWRZQ0LDPL¶V

UHVXUJHQFHZLWKRXWZHLJKLQJGRZQRXUURDGZD\VZLWKPRUHFDUV

$OO$ERDUG)ORULGDWKHSURSRVHGSDVVHQJHUUDLOVHUYLFHIURP0LDPLWR2UODQGRZLWKVWRSV

LQ)RUW/DXGHUGDOHDQG:HVW3DOP%HDFKSURPLVHVWRDGGDQHZGLPHQVLRQWRGRZQWRZQ

0LDPL¶VYLWDOLW\)ORULGD(DVW&RDVW,QGXVWULHVWKHFRPSDQ\WKDWEHJDQDV+HQU\)ODJOHU¶V

UDLOURDGKDVELJSODQVWRFRQQHFWWZRPDMRUWRXULVWGHVWLQDWLRQVDVHDUO\DV

,QDQHQYLURQPHQWDOUHSRUWWRIHGHUDOUHJXODWRUVWKH)(&GHWDLOVDVWFHQWXU\VWDWLRQRQ

QLQHDFUHVLQGRZQWRZQ0LDPLWKDWHYHQWXDOO\ZRXOGLQFOXGHUHVLGHQWLDODQGRIILFHWRZHUV

DQGDKRWHOORWVRIVKRSVDQGSDUNLQJIRUDERXWFDUV7KHHOHYDWHGWUDFNVZRXOGVWRS

IRXUVWRULHVKLJKFRQQHFWLQJWRUDLOOLQHVRQ1RUWKZHVW(LJKWK6WUHHWDQDUHDQRZXVHG

PRVWO\DVDSDUNLQJORWEHWZHHQ*RYHUQPHQW&HQWHUDQGWKH2YHUWRZQ0HWURUDLOVWDWLRQV

:LWKWKHSODWIRUPDQGDSRUWLRQRIWKHWUDFNVEXLOWLQWKHDLUWKHUHZRXOGEHRSHQDFFHVVWR

EXV\ORFDOWUDIILFJRLQJHDVWZHVWZLWKRXWWUDLQLQWHUUXSWLRQVDQGLWZRXOGRIIHUDQH\H

SRSSLQJYLHZIRUDUULYLQJSDVVHQJHUVZKRZRXOGWUDYHORQWKH)(&DERYHWKHH[LVWLQJ

0HWURPRYHUDW1RUWKZHVW)LIWK6WUHHW

8QOLNHSUHYLRXVIDVWWUDLQSURSRVDOVWKLVLVDSULYDWHIRUSURILWHQGHDYRUWKDWZRQ¶WUHTXLUH

VWDWHRUIHGHUDOIXQGLQJ7KH)(&WUDLQVZRXOGQ¶WWUDYHODVIDVWDVWKHKLJKVSHHGUDLO

SURSRVDOWKDW*RY5LFN6FRWWWXUQHGGRZQIURPWKHIHGHUDOJRYHUQPHQWWZR\HDUVDJREXW

WKHWUDYHOWLPH2 DWWKUHHKRXUVEHWZHHQ0LDPLDQG2UODQGR2 ZRXOGUHPDLQFRPSHWLWLYH

DWWUDFWLQJWRXULVWVDQGORFDOVDOLNH

$PWUDNDOUHDG\SURYLGHVWUDLQWUDYHOEHWZHHQ0LDPLDQG2UODQGRWZLFHDGD\EXWLWV

IUHTXHQWVWRSVPDNHWKHWULSDILYHKRXUDGYHQWXUH)(&SODQVWRRIIHUKRXUO\VHUYLFHDQG

VKDYHWKHWUDYHOWLPHE\WZRKRXUV

'ULYHUVQHHGQRWZRUU\DERXWJHWWLQJERJJHGGRZQDWWUDLQVWRSV7KH)(&SDVVHQJHUFDUV

VKRXOGWDNHOHVVWKDQDPLQXWH2 VHFRQGVDFFRUGLQJWRWKH)(&UHSRUW2 WRFOHDU

VWUHHWFURVVLQJV7KDW¶VDERXWZKDWLWWDNHVWRZDLWDWDVWRSOLJKWIRUWKHJUHHQ

7KHUHDUHVWHSVWRJRWRHQVXUHWKHSURMHFWJHWVWKHQRGIURPUHJXODWRUVORRNLQJDW

HQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVEXWRQFHDSSURYHGWUDYHOHUVFDQH[SHFWDWRSQRWFKH[SHULHQFH

)(&RIILFLDOVWROG7KH+HUDOG¶V(GLWRULDO%RDUGUHFHQWO\

)(&$OO$ERDUG)ORULGDWRRIIHUH[FLWLQJWUDLQVHUYLFHIURP0LDPLWR2UODQGR  3DJHRI

KWWSZZZPLDPLKHUDOGFRPYSULQWIHFDOODERDUGIORULGDWRRIIHU 
7DNHQWRJHWKHUZLWKWKH7UL5DLOFRPPXWHUUDLOVHUYLFHEHWZHHQ3DOP%HDFKWRDPHWUR

VWRSQHDU+LDOHDKDQGWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUVKDULQJWUDFNVZLWK)(&WRDGGPRUHVWRSVWR7UL

5DLO6RXWK)ORULGDLVKHDGLQJLQWKHULJKWGLUHFWLRQ

0LDPL+HUDOG0HGLD&RPSDQ\$OO5LJKWV5HVHUYHG

KWWSZZZPLDPLKHUDOGFRP

)(&$OO$ERDUG)ORULGDWRRIIHUH[FLWLQJWUDLQVHUYLFHIURP0LDPLWR2UODQGR  3DJHRI

KWWSZZZPLDPLKHUDOGFRPYSULQWIHFDOODERDUGIORULGDWRRIIHU